Vayeshev

INCREASING THE LIGHT Earlier (§11), Reb Noson explained that the basis of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned the appropriateness of drawing down a perception of Godliness to those on the lowest spiritual levels. He now applies this subject to the opposition raised against the tzaddikim in his time—especially Rebbe Nachman—who devoted themselves to bringing even the most spiritually distant closer to HaShem. Now, the aforementioned dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned drawing near to HaShem those people who are so very spiritually distant from Him that, strictly speaking, it would be unseemly to draw them close. There we saw that Beit Shammai states that we “keep decreasing” the number of lights in order to conceal the light from the spiritually distant so they will not be drawn closer to HaShem. Beit Hillel, however, states that we “keep increasing” the number of lights, because we need to fashion appropriate vessels and constrictions so as to illuminate with His light even the spiritually distant, so that they too will be drawn near.

This is the explanation of “Yaakov settled in the area of his father’s meguray (dwelling)” (Genesis 37:1). The Midrash states: “his father’s meGuRaY”—he made converts, as his fathers had (Bereishit Rabbah 84:4) ; as if it were written “miGiyuRaY (of the converts) of his father.”

2. The Land of Israel also receives essentially through the aspect of Yaakov, as is written (Genesis 37:1), “Yaakov lived in the Land.” This is why it is called “land of the living,” for tefilin are called life, as is written (Isaiah 38:16), “O God, [with these things] on them, they live.”

As it is written concerning Avraham, “the souls they made.” Likewise, it is written (Genesis 37:1), “Yaakov settled in the area of his father’s megurey (dwelling)”; and the Midrash states: This teaches that Yitzchak would make GeiRim (converts)—this is “his father’s meGuRey” (Bereishit Rabbah 84:4). And of Yaakov it is written (Genesis 35:2), “Yaakov said to his family and to those who were with him”—i.e., the converts—“Get rid of the alien gods.”

Or one might say, the dwelling of his father implies that every thought is an entire world, and they are sparks of holiness. He gathers them to the root. This is the meaning of the dwelling of his father, indicating that he, figuratively, gathers his father. This is the interpretation of "The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous." It is like the analogy of a son who, through his actions, brings the intelligence of his father into these actions. Similarly, the righteous, figuratively, do this for the Holy One, blessed be He, like an image that all their intellect is what He, may He be blessed, thinks. If they think with love, they bring the Holy One, blessed be He, into the world of love, as stated in the Zohar: "The king is bound with knots of thoughts. And this is explained: He contracted His Divine Presence between the two cherubim, meaning the wings of the vision of the Shechinah (Divine Presence). The Holy One, blessed be He, governs just as He thinks, and the eye is called intelligence. Intelligence is in the hand of the righteous. But how do they merit this level through their thoughts? They are dust and cannot perform any action without the strength of the Holy One, blessed be He. Thus, what they do, the Holy One, blessed be He, does, for if not for Him, He alone can do nothing. This is the meaning of "And good news from a distant land," for He thinks from the land, which is a distant land from the domain of the Evil Inclination. "And good news shall fatten the bones," as our Sages said: "Israel sustains their Father in Heaven." This is similar to a person who is satisfied due to pleasure. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, takes pleasure due to the actions of Israel, fattening the bones, meaning that He nourishes and delights His own essence in the chamber, which is He Himself. This is the interpretation of "And you shall be cherished," using the language of strength, as if we are sustaining Him, may He be blessed.

“And Yaakov dwelled ….” (Bereshit, 37:1) “And Yaakov shall return, and be quiet and contented, and none shall disturb him” (Yirmiya, 30:10). “And it shall be afterwards I will pour out my spirit … your elders shall dream dreams and your young men shall see visions” (Joel, 3:1). All the actions done in the world seem to be the actions of flesh and blood, but ideas and thoughts seem to come from God. But in these Parshiot God teaches us that it is the actions are in the hands of God and thoughts come from man, and all the actions that man does are only those that he is given leave to do, as it is written in the Gemara (Berachot, 33b), “all is in the hands of Heaven.” So the performance of a commandment or the opposite is in the hands of God, and only occasionally does He make the performance of a commandment dependent on man. We find in the Gemara (Sotah, 10a), “on the incident of Yehuda and Tamar, where he said, ‘she is more righteous than I,’ ‘than I,’ ‘mimeni,’ also means ‘from Me.’ Our Rabbis interpreted this to mean that a Divine voice came out of heaven to say that the whole incident came forth from Me.” It is said concerning the dreams of Yosef haTsaddik that they were inconsequential daydreams (that thoughts are really from the side of man), and truly his brothers gave him this response when he told them his dream. When Yaakov Avinu dreamed his dream en route to Lavan, he investigated it and taught all the depth within it to the tribes, and they studied it, each time receiving new Torah insights into its nature, for so many deep Torah insights are contained in this dream. So when Yosef haTsaddik said to them that he also dreamed dreams as precious as his father’s, they answered him, “will you surely rule over us?” For how could you resemble our father, for is not our father in a state of awe and cleaving to God all day long, and for this God shows him the depths of the Torah in his dreams, for he is cleaving God even in his sleep. But you are not on this level, so all your dreams are inconsequential fancies, and through your desire for greatness and status you dream these dreams, for you have no greatness from the qualities of the fear of God or humility. Yaakov Avinu, on the other hand, was constantly engaging in Divine service through these qualities—fear—meaning that he saw how God watches over everything, as it is written (Tehilim, 33:14), “from Your dwelling place you watch” and “he does not sleep” (Tehilim, 121:4). And humility—meaning he did not find himself superior to any part of creation, for “the superiority of a man over a beast is naught.” This, “naught” ayin in Hebrew, means that even though that truly from God’s point of view there is a difference between man and beast, from man’s point of view there is no (ain) distinction. This is “and Yaakov dwelled in the land of his father’s sojourning,” signifying fear (Zohar Bereshit 180a), and the continuation, “in the land of Canaan,” means humility. (The name Canaan is similar to the word for humility or submissiveness, c’niya.) And as the Midrash says, “he asked to live in peace.” This particular kind of peace occurs when a man conducts himself in a way as to remove himself and to guard himself from all doubt and all evil action. Concerning this, God told him that as long as man is connected to his body, it is not possible to reach the highest levels of self-guarding, fear, and humility. This is because God desires the actions of man, and in this world one must conduct himself with love, which means to act in ways that are not in the highest state of refinement. This is the formulation of the verse in Yirmiya, “and Yaakov returned [shav],” similar to “He restores [yeshovev] my soul,” in the delight of the Torah. “And be quiet,” meaning on the level of Shabbat, “and strangers shall stand and tend your sheep,” (Yesahya, 61:5). “And content,” meaning in thought, not to fear from wars and transient events. “And none shall disturb you,” meaning that even in your sleep you shall cleave to God, and not to fear, for nothing shall cause you to withdraw from God. This was the accusation of the tribes against Yosef haTsaddik. He too conducted himself in the attribute of fear. On this it says in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabba, 84:8), “the light of his face was similar to Yaakov,” meaning that he delved deeply into these two attributes of fear and humility, in order that he could proceed in confidence. Thus it was said of him, “he was the son of his old age,” meaning that just as Yaakov Avinu conducted himself according to the attributes of Yitzchak Avinu, namely fear, so too did Yosef conduct himself with this attribute, and with humility, just like his father. For this reason God was also exacting with Yosef haTsaddik down to a hairsbreadth, for even though these attributes are good, one still needs to trust in God, for the actions done on the part of man are not an everlasting structure. Even though Yosef guarded himself greatly, and from him emerged all the kings of Israel who were called great, as it says in the Midrash (Bereshit Rabba, 84:14), “It was the custom of great men to wear sackcloth [to suffer], for Yehoram dressed in sackcloth,” yet still, it is said of them (Kings 1, 11:39), “yet not all the days.” This means that (even through all their suffering) an everlasting structure was not to be in their portion, but rather in the portion of Yehuda. Even though he (Yosef) acted so his righteousness would stand in the world throughout the 6,000 years (until the redemption), still, the everlasting structure was the portion of Yehuda. And Yosef haTsaddik continually voiced the complaint—why is it that God causes all the actions of my brother Yehuda to succeed, yet with me, the Holy One, blessed be He, is exacting down to a hairsbreadth? So, in an answer to his query, God showed him the example of the wine steward and the baker. Every king has two attendants, one a wine steward and the other a baker. Truly, with the wine steward, if the king finds a fly in his cup it is not proper to punish him, for what could he do? The fly is an independent living creature, and if once the cup has been passed to the king the fly decides to land into the cup, then it is not possible to guard from it. Yet with the baker, if there is a pebble in the bread, isn’t it his fault, for the pebble is not a living being and he could have prevented it? In this God shows Yosef that he corresponds to the baker, for God established him in a bright and clean place over against Eisav, in order that Eisav would not have any room for accusation. This is why established Yosef against him, clean in all respects, as it is written (Ovadiah, 1:18), “and the house of Yosef is a flame [and the house of Eisav straw … and they shall devour them].” He gave him strength to be able to overcome all his desires. Then if some impure aspect comes to him from without, it is counted against him as a crime. Only out of God’s love for Yosef did He put another man in his place, and kill the baker, as it is written (Yesahya, 43:4), “and I will give men in your place.” From this he understood the matter. Yehuda corresponds to the wine steward, for King David is called “the King’s jester” (Zohar Shemot, 107a), and the songs of David are sung over the wine libation offerings. Truly, with Yehuda, concerning the incident with Tamar and all the happenings of the tribe of Yehuda similar to this, God instilled them with such a great power of desire that it was not even within their power to overcome it. As it is explained (Bereshit Rabba, 85:9), “the angel in charge of desire forced him.” Therefore it was not his fault that he could not overpower his inclination to evil. This is the meaning of “the King’s jester,” meaning that he lets God win over him, as King David said (Tehilim, 51:6), “in order that You should be shown right in Your word,” let whoever it pleases You to be right, You or I.

“And Yaakov returned to the land of his father’s sojourning, in the land of Canaan.” (Bereshit, 37:1) In this Parsha we find the first fine spiritual birrurs (birrurim) that occurred internally within Israel. Avraham Avinu was the root of the attribute of love, for he separated out all the kinds of love in the world that were not love solely given over to God’s will. Yitzchak Avinu was already refined in this attribute, for he was born from Avraham Avinu after he had refined himself with all such birrurs. So his attribute was only to refine fear, that is, to disencumber fear from any variety that is not the fear of God alone. With Yaakov Avinu, these two attributes were already well refined, and all of his dealings were in the attribute of tiferet—beauty (balance, splendor), termed the “middle bolt,” (See Shemot, 36:33) to arrange fear in its proper place and time, and so too with love. In the days of Avraham Avinu the depth of the preciousness of the Jewish people was not yet clearly recognized, and also in the days of Yitzchak, therefore they had to refine themselves from the attributes of the nations and to separate themselves from their power. This was not so with Yaakov Avinu, who had the twelve tribes of Yeshurun, who were all in their proper place, and not one deviated from God’s will. Here, all his efforts were to refine them among themselves, to clarify who would come first and who would come after. This too caused Yaakov Avinu suffering, for he asserted that Yosef was the chosen one. Yosef also thought this. These are the fine internal birurim that occurred within Israel, and will be explained further.

And Yaakov settled in the land where is father dwelled etc. It seems to me that in combination with the verse "may there be peace in your walls, harmony in your palaces" (Ps. 122:7) that there is in the Gemarah "From the day that the Holy One of Blessing created the world there was no person who called him “Adon” until Abraham came and called him Adon" (Berakhot 7b) - and at the surface, why is it remarkable in that that he called God "Adon"? Yet, see that we need to unify the names Havaya"h and Ad-nai and then God's Blessed Name is called Adon, through what we sing "El Adon over all His Deeds", that "El" is Chesed as it is written "El's faithfulness [chesed] never fails" (Ps. 52:3), and through our unifying of the Blessed Name we cause and continue lovingkindness [chasadim] and compassion to the world, and this is "El", meaning, when we arouse lovingkindnesses through our unifying of God's Blessed Name then God is "Adon over all His deeds". And this is "and YHV'H in His holy abode— be silent before Him all the earth" (Habakuk 2:20), that the name Adona'i is the abode for the name Havaya'h, Blessed, as known. And at the moment that we unify God's great name in the holy abode, that is, the unification in the name Adona'i, "all the earth is silent", that is "has" [silent] in gematria is 'Adona'i' that is, then God was called Adon over all the earth.

The Midrash explains that Yaakov's gathering with his sons protected him from Eisav. The Mishna (Avot 4:11) states, "Any gathering for the sake of Heaven will endure." While Yaakov faced many struggles and was away in Padan Aram, Eisav lived comfortably in Canaan. However, Eisav eventually left because of Yaakov, as his intentions were not for the sake of Heaven. Yaakov, despite his hardships, ultimately settled in the land of his fathers, showing that his journey was always intended for a higher purpose. The Mishnah (Avot 5:17) also teaches that any argument for the sake of Heaven will endure, suggesting that Yaakov's disputes with Eisav and Lavan were ultimately for a righteous purpose. This is evident as Yaakov's intentions were revealed to be for the sake of Heaven, ensuring his actions had lasting significance. The pasuk from Yeshaya 57:13, "When you call out, you will be saved," indicates that everything depends on intention. For Bnei Yisrael, help can always be found, especially when intentions are pure. When salvation comes through gathering, it signifies that the intention was for the sake of Heaven. The pasuk (Bereishis 37:1) states, "Yaakov dwelt in the land of his fathers - מגורי אביו," alluding to the connection back to the source, similar to the concept of Shabbos. Just as Yaakov now rested, when the effort of the weekdays is directed towards Shabbos, it is considered a gathering for the sake of Heaven. This gathering also refers to future generations, as the actions of the forefathers impact all generations. The forefathers' actions became Torah, teaching Bnei Yisrael, and their traversed places retained remnants of their holiness. The Midrash also explains Yaakov's lack of rest from Lavan, Eisav, Dina, and Yosef, symbolizing the four kingdoms that ruled over Bnei Yisrael. The lengthy exile is attributed to the sin of selling Yosef, emphasizing that our hatred towards one another has caused a wound in the source of the tribes, bearing the suffering of their sins.

“And Yaakov dwelt in the land—מגורי of his fathers” (Bereishis 37:1). The Zohar explains that the word מגורי is an expression of fear. Our sages teach that each of our forefathers had a unique trait: Avraham embodied love and kindness, Yitzchak embodied fear, and Yaakov combined both. Until this stage, Yaakov primarily operated in the realm of Avraham’s loving kindness, which is associated with travel and spreading holiness, as seen in Avraham's commandment "Lech Lecha." Love and kindness extend beyond obligation and help bring those who are distant closer, making Hashem's name beloved through one's actions (Yuma 86a). Now, Yaakov transitioned to embodying the fear of Yitzchak. Just as Yitzchak was commanded not to leave Eretz Yisrael, Yaakov settled in the land. While pursued by Eisav, Yaakov was in the mode of Avraham’s loving kindness, drawing out sparks of holiness. Once this was complete, Yaakov shifted to the attribute of fear, which might explain why the “anger of Yosef” emerged. Yaakov, now dealing with divine judgment, found it challenging to maintain this state, as true completion requires a blend of divine judgment and mercy.

Rashi (Bereishis 37:1), citing the Midrash Tanchuma (Vayeshev 1), compares the mention of Eisav's descendants to a gem that fell into sand. One sifts through the sand (Eisav's descendants) to find the gem (Yaakov and Bnei Yisrael). The Torah details the generations from Noach to Avraham to establish Avraham’s lineage, but why list Eisav's descendants, who were born after Yaakov? The explanation is that Yaakov's perfection came through overcoming these negative forces. The Torah first lists the kings of Edom (Bereishis 36:31) and then states "And Yaakov dwelt" (Bereishis 37:1). This sequence shows that the negative forces exist so the righteous can overcome them and achieve greater heights. This aligns with "And one nation will get strength from another nation" (Bereishis 25:23). Eisav’s power exists only to perfect the side of holiness. Thus, Eisav’s strength comes from Yaakov. When negative forces dominate, their true purpose isn't clear. The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni 1:140) likens this to chaff boasting that the field was planted for it. Yet, when the wheat is fully grown, the chaff is blown away. The chaff does protect the wheat, but this becomes clear only once the wheat is fully developed.

The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 84:1) explains the pasuk, "And Yaakov dwelt in the lands of his fathers" (Bereishis 37:1), emphasizing that the gathering of Yaakov and his sons saved him from Eisav. Our existence revolves around mending divisions within the world. Thus, our souls engage in various pursuits, contributing to the restoration of all things through our involvement. Final reparation, however, comes through nullification to the source, which is the essence of teshuva. When a person returns to their source and regrets their separation from holiness due to involvement in worldly matters, they can repair everything through the power of teshuva. The gathering and nullification were also due to Yaakov's prior efforts. As our sages teach (Megillah 6b), "If one says I toiled and I found [succeeded], you can believe him." This toil during the weekdays merits the rest of Shabbos. Yaakov's efforts during his travels out of Eretz Yisrael led him to return to "the land where his fathers dwelt," symbolizing nullification to the source. This is why the pasuk states, "These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef." The effort in toiling in Torah represents Yaakov, and if done with truth, it leads to Yosef, symbolizing gathering and addition. When one connects all power to oneness, they gain more strength from the source, akin to the unity experienced on Shabbos, "when everything is united with the secret of Oneness."

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan." To understand this matter, consider the repetition of the phrase "in the land of his father's sojournings, in the land of Canaan." It is written, "I walk before the Lord in the lands of the living." There are two lands that serve as vessels for drawing inspiration for higher life (and just as 'life' is a plural term, so are 'lands'). The explanation of this matter requires understanding why the Land of Canaan is referred to throughout the Torah as Eretz Yisrael. Indeed, Ham is the father of Canaan, and what is the significance of Eretz Yisrael being associated with this (also to understand what is meant by 'Canaan in his control with deceptive scales')? Also, what is written, 'And there shall be no Canaanite in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day'? It is known that the entire Torah is alluded to in this, as opposed to that. Just as Laban and Esau are in the realm of impurity, and likewise, the minister of slaughter, and the minister of libations, etc., so are all these aspects within holiness, for this contrasts with that which God has made.

And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father's sojournings, etc." This verse seems disconnected, neither relating upward nor downward. The Sages in Bereishit Rabbah (64:4) explained that Jacob sought to dwell in peace, but Joseph's coat kindled his anger. It was not enough for the righteous to have what is prepared for them in the World to Come; rather, "and etc." shows that the verse connected it to what follows. Yet, their statement remains challenging because, is it not punishment for the righteous to seek peace in this world, not to mention a stranger being considered like a serpent? Why should one not enjoy the fruits of Torah and commandments in this world, with the principal awaiting in the World to Come? I have heard it said that this is explained by the phrase, "He pleaded with him," not saying "he desired." Even good is received from God, but one should not seek it and pursue it. The knowledgeable in Midrashim might occasionally say "seek" instead of "desire." However, I think the explanation relates to not judging enough. It is appropriate to pay attention to what is corrected for them, not what is prepared for them, and similar expressions. It is not a term preserving correction, signifying what was lacking correction. Indeed, we find several righteous individuals who refrained from enjoying the fruits of Torah and commandments specially designated for consumption in this world, such as Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, and others. Concerning their sayings, the Torah says before the Holy One, blessed be He: "It has wealth and honor, why does the poor suffer?" He replied, "Let them inherit lovers," etc. What is the answer? He will inherit them with a permanent fund in the World to Come, and the fruits in this world. However, God says, "If I let them eat the fruits in this world, their fruits will go to waste in the vain that is the goodness of this world, not in what has substance; therefore, I will make a permanent fund from their fruits for the World to Come." This is what it says here, "Jacob sought, etc." Perhaps you would ask, "Does Jacob lack in sitting in tents what he should consume of the fruits in this world?" To this, I would say that it is not enough for the righteous to have what is corrected for them from the fruits of their deeds, which are the goodness of this world and become spiritual good. There is no greater correction than this. However, they also seek good in this world. And in a straightforward manner, it is also connected to what will be said below, "to Shem his son." But on this, we recall our commentary on the well-known verse, "Know well that your seed will be strangers," etc. It is fitting to pay attention to the entry in singular form and the exit in plural form. So, it is stated in "you will dwell" but "and they will afflict." However, it instructs that the mockery begins with the four hundred years. This is because there are two aspects to the sojourning: there is sojourning in general, and there is self-imposed servitude and affliction. He said, "Know well that there are two types of knowledge. One is that the sojourner, who is a wanderer in the world, will be your seed. This is the seed that will be a stranger before it enters the general multiplicity. However, upon reaching the general multiplicity, it will become enslaved. When they become numerous and are oppressed, they will count the years from when they were in Egypt. Among the sojourning and the servitude, they total four hundred years.

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled down;” this is recorded as something parallel to Esau’ settling down having been reported in Mount Seir in Genesis 36,8. After Esau having settled on what is now ancestral land for him. ( ואתן לעשו את הר שעיר, “I have given to Esau Mount Seir.) (Joshua 24,3) Yaakov is now described as having done something similar on the land promised by G-d to Avraham and his descendants commencing with Yitzchok and Yaakov. G-d had renewed this promise to Yaakov during his first vision in which he saw a ladder to heaven. Both Avraham and Yitzchok had only lived on that soil as sojourners, מגורי אביו; Yaakov’s claim was based on the law of the birthright, something he had purchased from Esau. At this time, when Esau went to the land of Seir, he went as an alien.

בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, “in the land in which his father sojourned, in the land of Canaan.” The Torah had to write both these details, even though it is common knowledge that Yitzchok never set foot on soil outside the land of Canaan. If the Torah had only mentioned the words מגורי אביו, “where his father had sojourned,” we would not know to which land it referred. In fact I might have thought that the Torah speaks about Ur Casdim where Avraham had sojourned for many years. If the Torah had only written: בארץ כנען, “in the land of Canaan,” I would not have known near which city Yaakov settled.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו. “Yaakov settled in the land his fathers had sojourned in.” The entire line was written in order to show that G-d had kept his promise to both Avraham and Yitzchok, and that one of their descendants had already not only sojourned in this land but had settled in it, and had acquired land in it through purchase. (33,19) In fact the expression ישיבה, referring to being settled did appear in connection with both Avraham and Yitzchok, as we know from 26,12, and 13,18.

The word "וישב" (And he settled) is composed of the same letters as the names Joseph, Dinah, Esau, and Laban. Our Rabbi Ephraim, may his memory be blessed, in his commentary, interpreted it cryptically. It is worth examining why these specific letters were chosen. It is possible that these letters, which allude to troubles, hint at the salvation because they spell out "ישוב" (settlement), indicating that ultimately there was settlement for him, and God placed peace for him from all his troubles. Since, in the end, he had settlement, significant like those, all his days were in a state of settlement, as our Sages mentioned. It also hints that "וישב" is a notarikon for "יסורין בתחילה ולבסוף שלוה" (suffering in the beginning and peace in the end).

AND JACOB DWELT. The Bible tells us (In the previous chapter, verse 8.) that the chiefs of Esau dwelt on the mountain of Seir but that Jacob dwelt in the chosen land. (The purpose of our verse is to teach us that Jacob, in contrast to Esau, dwelt in the land of Israel.)

... And that which he says, "and discards the pebbles," has no relation to the comparison; but it is rather only the end of the parable (a tangential detail). 

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. Jacob settled down in the land where his father sojourned, the land of Canaan. At first glance the entire verse seems superfluous seeing we have read in 35,27 that Jacob returned to Kiryat Arba the town where his father and grandfather had lived. As long as Jacob did not leave that town again, why did the fact that Jacob had settled there have to be repeated? Besides, why did the Torah have to say both: a) in the land his father sojourned, and b) the land of Canaan? If the Torah only wanted to pinpoint the place all that was necessary was the word "in Chevron." We already know that both Abraham and Isaac had lived there.

However, since the Torah told us in the preceding paragraph that Jacob's brother Esau inherited the land of Se-ir thanks to the merit of his fathers, the Torah also had to tell us what Jacob's heritage was. The entire verse is an acknowledgment of Jacob's goodness. Although he had noted that his brother had inherited the land of Har Se-ir (see my commentary on 35,12), he, Jacob did not do so but was content to continue on the basis of his fathers who had merely considered themselves as sojourning on that land, i.e. he still viewed it as ארץ כנען.

Another possibility is that it is called here the land of Canaan which had been given to Jacob by G'd as an inheritance although he personally conducted himself there as if he were only an alien until the trouble with Joseph happened. This is one of the meanings of: "These are the developments of Jacob, Joseph." It means that effectively, the history of the development of the Jews as a people began with the sale of Joseph, the subsequent descent into Egypt, how G'd redeemed them from there and kept His promise and how they eventually inherited the land of Caanan.

אל תגזול דל כי דל הוא ואל תדכא עני בשער, כי ה’ יריב ריבם וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, "Do not rob the poor for he is poor; do not oppress the poor in the gate, for the Lord will fight their battle, He will put in their place those who tried to put them in their place" (Proverbs 22,22-23) In the two verses quoted above Solomon informed us of the penalty for stealing from the poor. It is well known that there are four categories of people concerning whom the Torah has expressed especial concern, asking people to be merciful towards them and not to inflict any harm upon them. They are: the poor, the orphans, the widows and the proselytes. Indeed we find that the Torah expresses a warning against discrimination against the aforesaid in one and the same verse in Deuteronomy 16,14 where we read: ושמחת בחגיך, אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך. “You are to rejoice on your festival, you, your son, your daughter, your male servant and your maid servant, the proselyte, the orphan and the widow in your cities.” Our sages as quoted by Rashi comment: “these four are Mine (G’d speaking). If you will give joy to those who are Mine, I will provide joy for those that are yours.” Mention of the Levites is equivalent to mentioning the poor as the Levites have no source of income other than the generosity of the Jewish farmer. G’d Himself is their portion as we read in Numbers 18,20 אני חלקך ונחלתך, “I am your share and your inheritance.” When the Torah legislated the treatment of the poor it did so both as a positive as well as a negative commandment. It is written (Deut. 15,10) נתון תתן, “you shall surely give (repeatedly),” (15,8) “and you shall repeatedly open your hand for him (the poor).” The negative counterpart of this commandment is found side by side (15,10), לא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “your heart must not feel bad when you give him.” We also find another basic aspect of this commandment in Deut. 15,7 לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפוץ את ידך מאחיך האביון, “do not harden your heart or close your hand against your destitute brother.” Seeing that the Torah legislated against stealing altogether already in the Ten Commandments as well as in Leviticus 19, 19,13, there was no need to stress a prohibition against stealing from the poor. The instruction to give to the poor would have been sufficient to make it plain that it is forbidden to steal from the poor instead of giving to the poor. The fact that the Torah nonetheless writes words prohibiting this prompted Solomon to tell us that the penalty for stealing from the poor is far harsher than that for stealing from ordinary people. It was not Solomon’s habit to repeat commandments which have been spelled out in the Torah already and to simply repeat them in his volume משלי, Proverbs. Whenever he does so, he does so only in order to reveal an additional dimension to such a commandment. After all, who is so great that he could arrogate to himself to add to the Torah something Moses had not already thought of or been told by G’d to write down? Solomon, in common with later sages, only added “fences” to the Torah, i.e. warned against conduct which might lead to infringing Biblical commandments. This is why he said: “do not steal from the poor because he is poor,” i.e. stealing from him is so commonplace seeing that the poor is defenseless, that we must be warned not to exploit his weakness. The poor does not have protagonists such as the rich have. Everybody hates the poor and keeps his distance from him, even his relatives. This is why Solomon emphasises that the temptation to steal from the poor is great precisely “because he is poor.” Solomon therefore warns us not to think that because the poor do not have defenders of flesh and blood that they are without recourse. On the contrary, G’d Himself is their advocate and will see to it that they do not suffer because they are being exploited due to their poverty. He will go out of His way to administer punishment to anyone who steals from the poor. Contrary to the penalty for thieves who do not steal from the poor specifically, whose penalty the Torah expressed in terms of financial restitution and penal charges, someone who steals from the poor will endure chastisement of body and soul. This is the meaning of the words וקבע את קובעיהם נפש, “he will put in their places those who have tried to put the poor in their place.” The Torah warns us in many places not to disadvantage orphans and widows, i.e. כל אלמנה ויתום לא תענון, ”do not oppress any orphan or widow” (Exodus 22,21). Our sages in the Mechilta comment on this verse: “even the widow of a king (presumably wealthy and influential) is included in this commandment.” The same applies to children of a king left orphaned. The reason is that in spite of their financial resources, the state of mind of such widows and orphans is one of melancholy and they are apt to cry at the slightest provocation. It is unfortunately a fact of life that people do take advantage of orphans and widows. The Torah goes on to say: אם ענה תענה אותם.....והרגתי אתכם בחרב והיו נשיכם אלמנות ובניכם יתומים, “if indeed you will persecute them..then I will kill you and your wives will become widows and your children orphans.” The Torah conditions this harsh punishment on the assumption that the victim cried out to G’d for vengeance. Generally speaking, people faced with unfair treatment put their faith in seeking recourse from a human tribunal. The orphan and widow have no other recourse than G’d Himself. This is why G’d listens specifically to their outcries and fights their battles for them. Solomon also addresses the plight of orphans and widows in this chapter, and this is why he said (Proverbs 23,10-11) אל תסג גבול עולם, ובשדי יתומים אל תבא. כי גואלם חזק. הוא יריב את ריבם אתך. “Do not remove ancient boundary marks; do not encroach upon the field of orphans. For they have a powerful redeemer; he will fight their battles against you.” The Torah also takes up the plight of the proselytes (strangers, immigrants to the land of Israel) on many occasions For instance, we find in Exodus 22,20 וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים. “And do not taunt or oppress a stranger (convert) for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” The Torah cites an additional reason for treating the proselyte fairly when it writes (Exodus 23,9) כי אתם ידעתם את נפש הגר, “for you are familiar with the mentality of the stranger.” Significantly, the Torah did not speak of your “knowing the stranger,” but of your being familiar with נפש הגר, the soul, the mentality of the stranger. You know that the mentality of strangers is one of feeling subdued, humbled, etc., so that his eyes are constantly turned towards G’d seeing he lacks in self-confidence. The Talmud (Baba Metzia 58) speaks of the prohibition of reminding a proselyte or even his son of his former deeds or the deeds of his father. When such a proselyte comes to study Torah one is not to say to him: “ how can the mouth which used to enjoy all manner of forbidden foods presume to qualify to study the holy Torah.” The reminder of the Torah that when the Jewish people were still enslaved in Egypt their status was not superior to the recent proselyte is an example of the Rabbinic dictum מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך, “do not speak to your fellow man about a blemish as long as you yourself are afflicted with a similar blemish.” (Baba Metzia 59). In fact we find that the righteous themselves are referred to as גרים, strangers, the expression גר being derived from גרגיר, something that has been separated from its origin. The righteous is in the habit of viewing himself as distinctive, a loner, in the sense that he is different from the majority. For instance, he does not view his residence on this earth as something other than temporary. This is what King David had in mind when he said (Psalms 119,19) “I am only a stranger on earth, do not hide Your commandments from me.” He viewed himself as a tourist who has already been invited to commence a journey though he does not know the time of departure. Seeing that he does not know when he will depart, he must accumulate provisions for his journey to guard against a sudden and unprepared departure. What do these “provisions” consist of? The observance of G’d’s commandments. This is what David meant when he asked G’d not to hide His commandments from him. We also note that all of the patriarchs have been referred to as גרים on different occasions. Avraham said of himself (Genesis 23,4) “I am a stranger or a resident stranger amongst you” when he prepared to buy a burial ground for Sarah. Yitzchak was commanded by G’d to remain in the land of Canaan during the famine, albeit as a stranger. The wording is גור בארץ הזאת, “sojourn in this land on a temporary basis” (Genesis 26,3). Yaakov is referred to as a stranger in our verse (first verse of our portion וישב) as well as in Genesis 47,4 and when he described his long stay at Lavan’s as that of a stranger in Genesis 32,5.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען, "Yaakov settled in the land in which his fathers had lived as sojourners, in the land of Canaan." The Torah uses the term וישב, i.e. permanent residence, instead of ויגר, “he sojourned (as a stranger)“ in order to create a parallel with Esau who had been described as securely settled in the mountains of Seir in 36,8. Esau was so described as we were told about the kings, etc., which he established in his country starting at that time. His descendants remained on the same soil never to migrate again. The Torah had to contrast this with the fact that Yaakov took undisputed possession of a part of the (subsequent) land of Israel for the first time. Such possession is here described by the words וישב. His tenure is contrasted with that of either Avraham or Yitzchak, who a) lived there as nomads, b) as individuals, not having produced a clan of 70 people plus their in-laws as had Yaakov. At the same time the Torah also refers to the temporary status of the patriarchs in the land of Canaan by saying ארץ מגוריהם אשר גרו שם, (Exodus 6,4) where all of the patriarchs were referred to as only sojourning in that land. The fact is that whereas Avraham had been a first generation immigrant, both Yitzchak’s mother and Yaakov’s mother as well as the mothers of all of his children had been born outside the Holy Land thus making also their children “strangers,” at least technically. According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה.....וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived,......and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.” In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח,...ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely,...G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. We have already commented on the meaning of this on 35,27.

AND JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND OF HIS FATHERS. The meaning of the verse is that since Scripture had said that the chiefs of Esau dwelt in the land of their possessions (Above, 36:43, the concluding verse in the previous Sedra.) — that is to say, the land which they took to themselves as a possession forever — it now says that Jacob, however, dwelt as his father had, as a stranger in a land which was not their own but which belonged to the Canaanites. The purport is to relate that they (Isaac and Jacob.) elected to dwell in the Chosen Land, (A term denoting the Land of Israel. See Ramban above, 19:5.) and that G-d’s words to Abraham, That thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, (Above, 15:13.) were fulfilled in them but not in Esau, for Jacob alone shall be called their progeny. (“Their”: Abraham and Isaac.)

וישב יעקב, whereas Esau had moved to another country on account of his brother Yaakov, Yaakov settled near his father in the land in which both he, his father, and his grandfather had only sojourned up until now. He claimed this right as the result of having purchased the birthright from his older brother.

וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE — After it (Scripture) has described to you the settlements of Esau and his descendants in a brief manner — since they were not distinguished and important enough that it should be related in detail how they settled down and that there should be given an account of their wars and how they drove out the Horites (see Deuteronomy 2:12) — it explains clearly and at length the settlements made by Jacob and his descendants and all the events which brought these about, because these are regarded by the Omnipresent as of sufficient importance to speak of them at length. Thus, too, you will find that in the case of the ten generations from Adam to Noah it states “So-and-so begat so-and-so”, but when it reaches Noah it deals with him at length. Similarly, of the ten generations from Noah to Abraham it gives but a brief account, but when it comes to Abraham it speaks of him more fully. It may be compared to the case of a jewel that falls into the sand: a man searches in the sand, sifts it in a sieve until he finds the jewel. When he has found it he throws away the pebbles and keeps the jewel (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 1). Another explanation of וישב יעקב AND JACOB ABODE: The camels of a flax dealer once came into a city laden with flax. A blacksmith asked in wonder where all that flax could be stored, and a clever fellow answered him, “A single spark caused by your bellows can burn up all of it.” “So, too, when Jacob saw (heard of) all these chiefs whose names are written above he said wonderingly, “Who can conquer all these?” What is written after the names of these chieftains? — and in this may be found the reply to Jacob’s question: These are the generations of Jacob — Joseph. For it is written (Obadiah 1:18) “And the house of Jacob shall be a fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau, for stubble: one spark issuing from Joseph will burn up all of these (descendants of Esau) (Genesis Rabbah 84:5). The passage beginning “Another explanation” is found in an old Rashi text.

(1-2) ישב und גור sind gewissermaßen Gegensätze. ישב verwandt mit יצב .יצב: feststehen, und zwar, dem צ-Laut gemäß, mit einer Hindernisse überwindenden Energie. ישב, dem ש-Laut gemäß: ein natürliches, ruhiges, hindernisloses Weilen: Sitzen. גור hingegen ist das Weilen an einem Orte, wo man nicht hingehört, keinen Boden hat. (Daher auch, auf Seelenzustände übertragen: Halt verlieren, "sich entsetzen" fürchten). Da, wo seine Väter nur die flüchtige Wanderstätte gefunden, hoffte Jakob nun, nach so vielen Wanderungen, sich ruhig niederlassen zu können; war es ja das Land Kanaan, das eigentlich für seine ruhige Entfaltung verheißene Land. Allein die Zeit war im Gottesrate noch nicht da. Vielmehr stehen wir hier erst an: תלדות יעקב. Bis hierher, wo er sich als selbständiger Familienvater niederließ, gehörte er selbst noch zumeist zu תולדות יצחק, war mehr passiv, bedingt durch Jizchaks Familiengeschichte. Jetzt erst beginnt der weitere Fortschritt der jüdischen Geschichte durch ihn und sein Haus. —

בן שבע עשרה שנה, wir sind alle Söhne unserer zurückgelegten Lebensjahre. Sie sind, bewusst und unbewusst, unsere bildenden Mütter und Erzieher. — בצאן ist nicht Objekt von רעה, sondern Ortsbestimmung: als Hirte befand er sich mit seinen Brüdern bei den Schafen. Nur die Tagesarbeit des "Berufes" führte ihn mit den Brüdern, den Söhnen Leas, zusammen. Aber "Jüngling" war er, sein Jugendleben und Jugendstreben entfaltete er mit den Söhnen der שפחות, die nicht seine "Brüder"; sondern die Söhne "der Frauen seines Vaters" genannt werden. Wir haben also einen mutter- und geschwisterlosen Jüngling vor uns. Alle anderen wuchsen im Verein mit Geschwistern, unter dem Fittich und dem Einflusse mütterlicher Liebe heran. Josef stand allein. Die Mutter war ihm früh dahingegangen und hatte nur ihn zurückgelassen. Benjamin war noch Kind, kein Genosse für den Jüngling. Bei den Stiefbrüdern fühlte er sich nicht recht heimisch, und sich mehr zu den Söhnen der שפחות hingezogen, zu denen — vielleicht — auch Eitelkeit ihn führte. Wir haben schon oben bei dem Entgegentreten zu dem gefürchteten Onkel den Unterschied zwischen den גבירות und שפחות gesehen; wir glaubten wenigstens annehmen zu dürfen, daß bei diesen, wie emporgehoben sie auch als Gattinnen Jakobs waren, sich doch ein Gefühl der Unterordnung nicht ganz verlor. Das mag sich auch auf die Söhne übertragen haben. In Josef steckte der künftige Herrscher. Er war ein bißchen eitel und ein bißchen anmaßend. Natürlich hielt er sich lieber zu den Söhnen der שפחות, die sich ihm vielleicht etwas unterordneten, ihm vielleicht etwas schmeichelten.

Es sollten freilich alle diese Gegensätze in einem jüdischen Hause nicht sein, es sollte das Pflichtgefühl und die gemeinsame Unterordnung unter ein göttliches Lebensziel und die gemeinsame Arbeit an der Lösung dieser einen Lebensaufgabe alle Unterschiede ausgleichen. Allein das Ideal eines jüdischen Hauses ist erst Produkt der Erziehung durch das göttliche Gesetz und das jüdische Geschick. Wenn das, seiner Anlage nach עז שבאומות, keineswegs das gefügigste Volk, in dessen Anlage sehr wohl auch das נוקם ונוטר lag, das wir in seinen Uranfängen sogar aus קנאה und שנאה Verbrechen üben sehen, wenn dieses Volk durch die ihm durch Geschick und Lehre gewordene Erziehung so gehoben worden, daß solche grobe Verbrechen wie ש"ד und ג"ע Jahrhunderte herab in seinem Kreise nicht gekannt waren; wenn es das humanste, bruderliebendste Volk geworden; wenn die Vorsehung es wagen konnte, es — wie das die kaum entschwundenen Zeiten erlebt — den Misshandlungen von Gesetzgebungen in die Arme zu werfen, die Jahrhunderte lang ganz geeignet waren, den heftigsten Zwiespalt, die trostloseste קנאה und שנאה in den Schoß des jüdischen Familienlebens zu säen, indem sie Söhne auf den Tod des Vaters, jüngere Brüder auf den Tod der älteren hinwiesen, Kinder zu nichts kommen konnten, so lange die Väter, jüngere Brüder zu nichts, so lange die älteren lebten, und so die natürlichsten Bande in Fluch und Hindernis verkehrten — und doch das jüdische Familienleben mit Eltern-, Kinder- und Geschwisterliebe glänzend wie der Diamant und rein wie die Perle aus solchen heißesten Versuchungen hervorgehen, und die jüdische עזות sich zur Felsentreue und Standhaftigkeit gegen alle Versuchungen und Verlockungen verklären konnte —: so ist das eben ein Triumph der תורה, ein Triumph des göttlichen Gesetzes, das nicht aus uns, sondern an uns gekommen und seinen ersten glorreichsten Sieg in Eroberung unserer selbst feiern sollte. —

דבה .דבתם von דבב, verwandt mit טפף: das Trippeln, das schwankende Gehen des Kindes, verstärkt תפף: die einzelnen, in sich nicht zusammenhängenden Töne des Paukenschlages. Auf Worte übertragen, ist es Gegensatz zu der zusammenhängenden und inhaltsvollen Rede, die תפר ,תור ,טור ,דור) ,דבר) und חמר ,עמר) אמר ausdrücken. Also mehr: Geschwätz, Gerede. Daher auch דובב שפתי ישנים: die schwankende Lippenbewegung der Rede eines aus dem Schlafe Erwachenden. Im engeren Sinne heißt es dann: die Bösrede, der nicht sowohl der innere als biel- mehr der äußere Zusammenhang mit der Wirklichkeit der Tatsachen fehlt. Es ist zweifelhaft, wie hier das דבתם zu verstehen sei. Entweder: Gerede über sie, was er von ihnen sah, hinterbrachte er dem Vater, und zwar nicht in entschuldigender Weise, sondern רעה, ohne sie דן לכף זכות zu sein. Oder: es bezieht sich das Suffix auf die unmittelbar vorhergehenden Söhne Bilhas und Silpas. Deren Geschwätz über die anderen Brüder hinterbrachte er in unfreundlicher Weise dem Vater.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען. In the same region of the land of Canaan in which his father had sojourned. Compare a similar verse in 35,27 אשר גר שם אברהם ויצחק, “where Avraham and Yitzchok had sojourned.”

After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants... Re’m explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture not write first ואלה תולדות יעקב..., and then וישב יעקב..., which is the same format that it writes about Eisov. First Eisov’s descendants are enumerated (36:1) and then it tells where they had settled. Rashi answers: “After it has written for you concerning the settlements of Eisov and his descendants...” In other words, Scripture’s purpose is not to enumerate Yaakov’s descendants [as it did with Eisov], but only to explain the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants; and how they settled. [Thus, this section connects to the previous one as regards to settling,] as also the section about Eisov explained his settlement and that of his descendants. For it is written (36:8), “Eisov settled in Mount Seir,” explaining his settlement. Then it describes his descendants, “These are the descendants of Eisov...” and the descendants of his wives. Then it explains the settling of his sons (vs. 40-43), “These are the names of the chiefs of Eisov, each with their families, according to their places... These are the chiefs of Edom according to their places of residence.” Thus for Yaakov, too, Scripture tells about his settlements and that of his descendants, as it is written וישב יעקב..., which means, “Yaakov settled...” Then it is written אלה תולדות יעקב..., meaning: these are the settlements of the descendants of Yaakov, too, like [Scripture explained regarding] the descendants of Eisov. For at this point the Torah begins to recount what happened to them until they came there [to settle the Land]. It begins with “Yoseif at the age of 17,” then his being sold to Egypt and their enslavement there, then the Exodus — this and that happened to them until they came to settle the Land.

Unlike Esau, who left Canaan to settle on Mount Se’ir, Jacob settled, while his father was still alive, in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan.

וישב יעקב, “Yaakov settled, etc.” [the author addresses the strange line “in a land in which his father had been a stranger, the land of Canaan.” Ed.] Seeing that the Torah previously had reported that Esau had settled in the mountains of Seir, whereas Yaakov and family had dwelled like strangers in a land in which their fathers had dwelled only as strangers, in a land which was not theirs, and the prediction to Avraham their founder that his descendants would remain strangers for 400 years in a land not theirs had been in effect for a long time already, the Torah reminds us that this prediction had been meant for Yaakov’s descendants specifically, seeing that Yaakov’s father Yitzchok had never left the Holy Land since birth. The Torah had to remind us that the land of Canaan was not yet considered a “homeland” for Yitzchok’s or Yaakov’s descendants.

“Jacob was settled in the land where his fathers had sojourned” [37:1]. Bahya writes. This portion teaches us that the righteous person in the world is like a sojourner who has no relatives and no home, no field and does not think of anything other than to wander and must prepare provisions, since he does not know where he would travel. So too is the righteous person. He thinks about death all the time and prepares provisions for the journey. These are the good deeds. Therefore, the verse says, “Jacob was settled in the land where his fathers had sojourned” [37:1]. That is, he dwelled like a sojourner like his ancestors, who were also sojourners in the world who thinks about the next world. (Bahya, Genesis, Vayeshev, Introduction.) Scripture had mentioned the children of Esau briefly in the previous Torah portion because he did not want to speak at length about the evildoers. However, when it came to the children of Jacob, it goes on at length and explicitly about how the children of Jacob fared. A parable. A person lost a pearl in the sand. He takes a sieve and searches for the pearl. As soon as he finds the pearl, he throws away the sand and takes the pearl. So too, the Torah writes about the children of Esau briefly, but when it comes to the children of Jacob, it speaks at great length and explicitly about how the children fared. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:1.)

Chapter (57) 58: Torah [1] And Jacob dwelt in the land (Genesis 37:1). This is what the scripture says: "The eternal God is thy dwelling-place, and underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deuteronomy 33:27). At that time, when Israel dwelt securely, he relied upon the Lord alone (Deuteronomy 33:28). You do not know who preceded, whether it was the dwelling place or the God who preceded, but then David came and explained through Moses, "A prayer of Moses, the man of God. 'O Lord, You have been our refuge in every generation.'" (Psalm 90:1), meaning that God never preceded His creatures, as it says, "Who hath first given to Me, that I should repay him?" (Job 41:3). "And underneath are the everlasting arms" (Deuteronomy 33:27). R. Berechiah said that the Holy One, blessed be He, said: "Although I have created the world and maintain it, when there are righteous men below, it is as if they were maintaining the world," hence "underneath are the everlasting arms." "And He will thrust out the enemy from before thee, and say: Destroy" (Deuteronomy 33:27), this refers to Esau (and his chiefs), for it is written, "And Esau took his wives" (Genesis 36:6). "And He will thrust out" and rely upon the Lord alone, "and Israel dwelt securely" (Deuteronomy 33:28).

“Jacob settled in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1). “Jacob settled” – it is written: “Your gathering will save you when you cry out” (Isaiah 57:13). It is taught: His gathering and the gathering of his sons saved him from Esau. (Although originally Jacob was forced to flee from Esau, when he returned with his sons and they gathered in prayer together, Jacob was able to settle in the Land of Israel while Esau left and settled elsewhere (Genesis 36:6–8). ) “But all of them the wind will carry off; futility will take them” (Isaiah 57:13) – this is Esau and his chieftains. “And the one who trusts Me will inherit the land” (Isaiah 57:13) – this is Jacob. “Jacob settled.”

“If a lash causes death suddenly” (Job 9:23) – Antoninos asked Rabbeinu, (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) he said to him: ‘What is the meaning of what is written: “If a lash causes death suddenly”?’ Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: ‘[If you were to] decree that one should receive one hundred lashes and they would give him one hundred dinars. (If he is able to withstand all one hundred lashes, he will receive one hundred dinars. ) The total of this is the total of that, but he will not get anything from him, and in that way he makes a mockery of the one receiving the lashes. (The individual being lashed will not be able to withstand all of the lashes, and may even die, in which case he will not receive the dinars and will have suffered for naught. ) “He mocks at the undoing of the innocent” (Job 9:23) – Rav Aḥa said: When the righteous live in tranquility and seek to live in tranquility in this world, (It is the pursuit of tranquility, rather than the experience or enjoyment of tranquility, that is considered improper for the righteous (see Anaf Yosef). ) the accuser comes and accuses them. He says: Is what is prepared for them in the World to Come not sufficient for them, that they seek to live in tranquility in this world? Know that it is so; Jacob our patriarch, because he sought to live in tranquility in this world, was confronted by the accuser regarding Joseph. (The heavenly accuser caused him to suffer distress due to the sale of Joseph. ) “I was not tranquil, was not silent” (Job 3:26). “I was not tranquil” – from Esau; “was not silent” – from Laban. “And I did not rest” (Job 3:26) – from Dina. “But turmoil came” (Job 3:26) – the turmoil of Joseph came upon me.

Another matter: “Jacob settled…” – Abraham converted proselytes. That is what is written: “Abram took Sarai his wife…[and the people that they had made in Ḥaran]” (Genesis 12:5). Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra: Were all who entered the world to assemble, they would be unable to create even a small gnat, and you say: “And the people that they had made in Ḥaran”? Rather, these are the proselytes that Abraham converted. Why, then, did it say “made” and did not say “converted”? It is to teach you that anyone who draws a proselyte near, it is as though he created him. Lest you say that Abraham was converting [proselytes] and Sarah was not converting [them], the verse states: “And the people that they had made in Ḥaran.” It is not written here, “That he had made,” but rather, “that they had made.” Rabbi Ḥunya said: Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. Why does the verse state: “That they had made”? It teaches that Abraham would bring them into his house, feed them, give them to drink, draw them near, and bring them under the wings of the Divine Presence. (The expression “that they had made” implies physical action, which is not necessarily included in converting proselytes. The midrash explains that the phrase refers to the fact that Abraham and Sarah would invite them into their home, feed them, and give them to drink (Yefe To’ar). ) Jacob, too, converted proselytes, as it is written: “Jacob said to his household, [and to all who were with him: Remove the foreign gods that are in your midst, and purify yourselves].… They gave to Jacob [all the foreign gods that were in their possession]” (Genesis 35:2, 4). In Isaac’s regard we have not heard. Where did we hear? Rabbi Yitzḥak said, and some taught it in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya Rabba in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: Here it is written: “Jacob settled in the land of his father’s residence.” What is [the meaning of] “his father’s residence [megurei]”? Those whom his father converted [migiyurei].

What is written prior to this matter? “These are the kings [who reigned in the land of Edom before the reign of a king for the children of Israel]” (Genesis 36:31). And here it is written: “Jacob settled” – Rabbi Ḥunya said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the way and saw a pack of dogs. He was afraid of them and he sat in their midst. (Dogs pursue those who run, so he sat and did not run.) So, when our patriarch Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he feared them and settled in their midst. Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a blacksmith whose [forge] was open to a plaza, and his son, a goldsmith, opened opposite him. He saw many bundles of thorns being brought into the city. He said: ‘Where will all these bundles be stored?’ There was a certain clever man there. He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark will emerge from your [forge] and one spark from your son’s, and you will burn them.’ So, when Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he was afraid. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark from you and one spark from your son will burn all of them. That is what is written: “The house of Jacob will be fire, and the house of Joseph a flame” (Obadiah 1:18) – “Jacob settled.” “This is the legacy of Jacob. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives; Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). So said the Sages: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – all of these offspring [toladot] resulted only due to the merit of Joseph and because of him. Did Jacob not go to Laban only for Rachel? All these offspring were waiting until Joseph was born. (Jacob was afraid to return to his father in the land of Canaan, which would require him to confront Esau, until Joseph was born. ) That is what is written: “It was, when Rachel bore Joseph” (Genesis 30:25) – when the rival of that wicked one (Esau) was born, “Jacob said to Laban: Release me, and I will go” (Genesis 30:25). Who caused them to descend to Egypt? Joseph. Who supported them? Joseph. The sea was split only due to the merit of Joseph. That is what is written: “The waters saw You, God; the waters saw You and were frightened” (Psalms 77:17); “the depths sounded its voice” (Habakkuk 3:10); “with Your arm, You redeemed Your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph” (Psalms 77:16). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shimon said: The Jordan, too, split only due to the merit of Joseph. Another matter: “Jacob settled” – so said the Sages: Jacob our patriarch did not enjoy settlement until he resided in his father’s residence. Which is that? It is the land of Canaan, as it was there that his father, Isaac, resided. Another matter: The numerical value of “residence [megurei]” is two hundred and fifty-nine (Mem – 40; gimmel – 3; vav – 6; resh – 200; yod – 10. Together they sum to 259.) – [corresponding to the years] from the day that the Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: “Know [that your descendants shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs]” (Genesis 15:13) – until the time that Jacob our patriarch settled in the land of his father’s residence [megurei].

(Num. 25, 1) And Israel abode in Shittim. R. Jochanan said: "Wherever such an expression is to be found it brings infliction. And Israel dwelt in Shittim and the people began to commit incest; (Gen. 37, 1) And Jacob dwelt in the land of his fathers' sojournings, and Joseph brought evil reports of them unto their father. (Ib. 47, 27) And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen; and (Ib. 29) And the days of Israel drew near that he was to die. (I Kings 4, 5) And every man dwelt in safety, and (Ib. 11, 14) And the Lord stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite."

And Israel settled in Shittim. Balak and all his people of Pethor took counsel and said, "We have no choice but to seek the advice of Balaam." Balaam... Balaam gave his advice. Balak came to curse the people of Israel. It is written in one place (Joshua 24:9), "And he fought against Israel." And in another place (Judges 11:17), "If we fight with them." But he came to fight, and it did not go well. Immediately they went and entrusted their daughters, as our sages said regarding the "remembered above" matter. Therefore, it is said, "And Israel settled in Shittim, and the people began to commit sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab." And it says (Numbers 31:16), "These caused the children of Israel to sin." Weren't they brought from Midian? Rather, it teaches us that Midian and Moab were in this advice that Balaam gave in order to cause Israel to stumble. When Israel saw that Balaam had no power to curse them, they immediately fell into immorality, and 24,000 of them perished. "In Shittim" means that they engaged in foolishness. As it is also said (Proverbs 7:7), "The adulterous woman lacks sense." Another interpretation: "And Israel settled in Shittim." Whenever the term "settling" is mentioned, it is a language of distress. It is said regarding Cain (Genesis 4:16), "And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord and settled in the land of Nod." (Genesis 37:1) "And Jacob settled." Joseph was sold. (Exodus 32:6) "And the people sat down to eat and drink." And they handed over Joseph. (Exodus 32:6) "And the people sat down to eat and drink, and they got up to play." And Israel settled in Shittim, and there were deaths, and the people began to commit sexual immorality with the daughters of Moab. They made profane what was once holy. "The daughters of Moab" refers to the plains of Moab on the eastern side of the Jordan. For the wilderness of Jeshimon is to the west of the land of Moab, close to the Jordan, as it is a day's journey.

(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND WHERE HIS FATHER HAD SOJOURNED, < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. This text is related (to Deut. 33:27): THE ETERNAL GOD IS A DWELLING PLACE. R. Jeremiah said: We do not know (from the Hebrew text of Scripture) whether a DWELLING PLACE is GOD or whether GOD is a DWELLING PLACE. (Gen. R. 68:9 states the problem more clearly: “We do not know whether the Holy One is the place for his world or whether the world is his place.” Similarly, M. Pss. 90:10.) When it says (in Ps. 90:1): A PRAYER OF MOSES, THE MAN OF GOD: O LORD, YOU HAVE BEEN OUR DWELLING PLACE, [here the Holy One is the dwelling place for his world and the world is not his place]. Although the Holy One created his world, he did not dwell in the land but a righteous one; (Cf. MS 1240 from the De Rossi library in Parma: “He did not dwell in the land with < the > righteous.” Perhaps the text should read: “He did not dwell in the land but with the righteous. So Y. Elman in a private communication.) and by their merit < such righteous > ones sustain the world, as stated (in Deut. 33:27, cont.): AND UNDERNEATH ARE THE ARMS OF THE WORLD. (English translations generally render ARMS OF THE WORLD as “everlasting arms,” but here the midrash views the merits of the righteous as supporting the world like the arms of the mythological Atlas.) Come and see how, during all the time the wicked are in the world, the righteous never appear. And so you find that, during all the time Esau was in the land of Israel, Jacob was unable to appear. Esau passed on, as stated (in Gen. 36:6): THEN ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES, < AND WENT INTO A LAND AWAY FROM HIS BROTHER JACOB >. Immediately (one reads in Gen. 37:1): NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >. Therefore, (according to Deut. 33:27, cont.): SO HE DROVE OUT THE ENEMY FROM BEFORE YOU. At that time (according to vs. 28): THUS ISRAEL DWELT SAFELY ALONE.

[(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.] This text is related (to Is. 57:13): WHEN YOU CRY OUT, LET YOUR ASSEMBLED ONES SAVE YOU. What are they? These are the angels who were placed to guard him when he went away to go to Aram-Naharaim, since the angels who minister in the land of Israel do not minister outside the land, nor do those who belong outside the land < minister > in the land of Israel. (So above, 8:3.) So (in Gen. 28:12) Jacob saw < some > ascending and others descending to go abroad with him. Then, when he came to return, the Holy One summoned those angels who had ministered to him in the land. He said to them: Here is Jacob returning. Come on and let us go out for a meeting (Gk.: apante, according to the metathesis suggested by Buber and assumed in the Jastrow lexicon. On apante used for apantesis, see Jud. 4:22 (LXX).) with him {i.e., to the border}. To what is the matter comparable? To a king whose son went away overseas to take a wife. After some time he came to return to his father's house. The king said to his court (’PSYQYN, which probably represents the medieval Latin word for “court,” i.e., obsequium.) {i.e., to his army}: Come and let us go out for a meeting with my son. So, when Jacob came to return to the land of his father, the Holy One called the ministering angels. He said to them: Come and let us go out for a meeting with Jacob. As soon as Jacob raised his eyes, he saw the angels, as stated (in Gen. 32:2 [1]): SO JACOB WENT ON HIS WAY, AND THE ANGELS OF GOD MET HIM…. When Jacob saw them, where is it shown that they ministered to him in the land of Israel? Where it is stated (in vs. 3 [2]): WHEN JACOB SAW THEM, HE SAID: THIS IS GOD'S HOST. It is therefore stated (in Is. 57:13): WHEN YOU CRY OUT, LET YOUR ASSEMBLED ONES SAVE YOU. These < ASSEMBLED ONES > are the angels. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE WIND SHALL CARRY THEM ALL AWAY. (Gen. R. 84:1.) These are Esau and his lords, as stated (in Gen. 36:6): < THEN ESAU TOOK HIS WIVES >, AND WENT INTO A LAND AWAY FROM HIS BROTHER JACOB. (Is. 57:13, cont.:) YET THE ONE WHO TAKES REFUGE IN ME SHALL INHERIT THE LAND. This ONE is Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 37:1): NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.

[(Gen. 37:1:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >.] This text is related (to I Chron. 29:15): FOR WE ARE SOJOURNERS BEFORE YOU [AND TRANSIENTS LIKE ALL OUR ANCESTORS]. So are the righteous. The Holy One had made them the essential thing, but they make themselves subordinate. In the case of Abraham, the Holy One had magnified him, as stated (in Gen. 12:2): I WILL BLESS YOU AND MAGNIFY YOUR NAME. And so (in Gen. 13:17): ARISE, WALK ABOUT THE LAND < THROUGHOUT ITS LENGTH AND BREADTH, FOR I AM GIVING IT TO YOU >. < Yet > he says to the children of Heth (i.e., to the Hittites, in Gen. 23:4): I AM AN ALIEN AND A TRANSIENT AMONG YOU. So also with Isaac, the Holy One magnified him, as stated (in Gen. 26:12): SO ISAAC SOWED ON THAT LAND < AND REAPED IN THAT YEAR A HUNDREDFOLD, FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM >. It also says (in Gen. 26:6): SO ISAAC {SOJOURNED} [DWELT] IN GERAR. And so with Jacob (according to Gen. 36:6): NOW JACOB DWELT IN THE LAND WHERE HIS FATHER HAD SOJOURNED. It is therefore stated (in I Chron. 29:16): FOR WE ARE SOJOURNERS BEFORE YOU AND TRANSIENTS LIKE ALL OUR ANCESTORS.

(Gen. 37:1-2:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >…. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. What is written on the matter above (in Gen. 36:15)? THESE ARE THE LORDS OF THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. When Jacob saw them, he became alarmed and said: Who can stand against these? (Gen. R. 84:5; Tanh., Gen. 9:1.) To what is the matter comparable? To a goldsmith who would sit and ply his trade. His apprentice raised his eyes and saw a lot of camels who were loaded with straw. He began to say: Who can stand against these? His master said to him: If a spark went out of this furnace, it would burn all of them. So in the case of our father Jacob, when he saw all of Esau's lords, he began to be afraid and said: Who can stand against these? The Holy One said to him: Look at what is written below (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. By your life, someone shall spring from Joseph, < a person > who shall burn all of them, as stated (in Obad. 18): THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE A FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU SHALL BE STRAW; < THEY SHALL BURN IT >…. R.Hanina said: It is written (in Is. 47:14): SEE, THEY HAVE BECOME LIKE STRAW; FIRE CONSUMES THEM. It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Similarly, the verse And he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes alludes to Jacob. His father, Isaac, taught him the law and reprimanded him (as he studied) in the schoolroom, as it is said: And Jacob was a quiet man, dwelling in tents (ibid., v. 27). After he had absorbed everything his father could teach him, he left his father’s home to live in Eber’s home, where he continued to study the law. (Cf. Megillah 17a. He remained there fourteen years.) Therefore, he deserved to inherit the land of Israel, as it is written: And Jacob dwelt in the land of his father’s sojourning (ibid. 37:1). Our patriarch Jacob also punished and rebuked his sons, and taught them his customs and practices lest blemishes should appear in their character. Whence do we know this? From the fact that Scripture states: And these are the names of the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, etc. (ibid. 25:13). Scripture equates them all. (All of them are mentioned in the same verse.) Hence, he that loveth his son chasteneth him betimes.

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

Then Jacob dwelt safely and in peace in the land of his possession, and in the land of his birth, and in the land of the sojournings of his father.

“These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob; each came with his household” (Exodus 1:1). That is what is written: “He who spares his rod hates his son, and he who loves him seeks for him admonition” (Proverbs 13:24). The way of the world is that a person whom another tells him: ‘So-and-so struck your son,’ he would harass him. What is the meaning when the verse states: “He who spares his rod hates his son”? It is to teach you that anyone who withholds rebuke from his son, his son will ultimately set out on a path of depravity and he will hate him. As we find regarding Ishmael, who was beloved (Literally, he had longings for his father, which could explain his father’s love for him.) by his father Abraham, who did not chasten him, and he set out on a path of depravity. He then hated him and expelled him from his home emptyhanded. What did Ishmael do? When he was fifteen years old, he began to bring an idol from the marketplace, and he played with it and worshipped it in the manner that he saw others doing. (Although he made it look like he was just playing with it and even mocking it, in fact his intention was to worship it.) Immediately, “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she bore to Abraham, playing [metzaḥek]” (Genesis 21:9), and metzaḥek means nothing other than idol worship, like you say: “They rose to carouse [letzaḥek]” (Exodus 32:6). (This verse is written in the context of the sin of the Golden Calf.) Immediately, “She said to Abraham: Expel this maidservant and her son” (Genesis 21:10), so that my son will not learn his ways. Immediately, “the matter was very troubling in the eyes of Abraham regarding his son” (Genesis 21:11), because he emerged to a path of depravity. “God said to Abraham: Let it not be troubling in your eyes about the lad…everything that Sarah says to you, heed her voice” (Genesis 21:12). From here you learn that Abraham was subordinate to Sarah in prophecy. Immediately, “Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water…” (Genesis 21:14), teaching you that he hated Ishmael because he set out on a path of depravity, and sent him and his mother Hagar emptyhanded, and for that reason expelled him from his home. Is it conceivable that Abraham, in whose regard it is written: “Abram was very wealthy in livestock, in silver, and in gold” (Genesis 13:2), would send his wife and his son from his house emptyhanded, without garments and without sustenance? Rather, it is to teach you that once he [Ishmael] set out on the path of depravity, he [Abraham] paid no attention to him. (Consequently the verse states that he gave them bread and water, implying that he did not give them other means of support. ) What ultimately became of him? When he banished him, he sat at the crossroads and would rob people, as it is stated: “He will be a wild man” (Genesis 16:12). Similarly, “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28); therefore he set out on a path of depravity, because he did not chasten him, as we learned: The wicked Esau violated five transgressions on that day. He consorted with a betrothed young woman, killed a person, denied the revival of the dead, denied the principle [of belief in God], and scorned the birthright. In addition, he desired the death of his father and sought to kill his brother, as it is stated: “Let the days of mourning for my father approach and I will kill Jacob my brother” (Genesis 27:41), and he caused Jacob to flee from his fathers. And he [Esau] too went to Ishmael to learn from him the path of depravity and to add to his wives, as it is stated; “Esau went to Ishmael, [and took Maḥalat the daughter of Ishmael…in addition to his wives, as his wife]” (Genesis 28:9). Similarly, David did not chastise Avshalom and did not chasten him, [and Avshalom] set out on the path of depravity. He sought to kill his father, he lay with his [father’s] concubines, and forced him to walk barefoot, weeping; and thousands and tens of thousands from Israel fell. In addition, he caused him endless hardships, as it is written: “A psalm by David when he fled from Avshalom, etc.” (Psalms 3:1). What is written afterward? “Lord, how numerous are my tormentors, etc.” (Psalms 3:2). The path of depravity (A wayward child) in a person’s household is worse than the war of Gog and Magog, as regarding Gog and Magog it is written: “Why do nations rage and peoples meditate in vain?” (Psalms 2:1), and there it is written: “Lord, how numerous are my tormentors.” David acted similarly with Adoniya, as he did not chasten him with chastisement and he did not scold him; therefore, he set out on the path of depravity, as it is written: “His father never distressed him, [saying: Why did you do so? …and she bore him after Avshalom]” (I Kings 1:6). But wasn’t Avshalom the son of Maakha, and Adoniyahu the son of Ḥaggit? What is: “And she bore him after Avshalom”? Rather, because [Avshalom] set out on the path of depravity because his father did not chasten him, and in Adoniyahu’s regard, it is written: “His father never distressed him,” he, too, set out on the path to depravity. Therefore, it is written: “And she bore him after Avshalom.” “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition” (Proverbs 13:24); this is the Holy One blessed be He. It is because he loves Israel, as it is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2) that he promotes them through suffering. You find three excellent gifts that the Holy One blessed be He gave to Israel, and he gave them all to them by means of suffering: The Torah, the Land of Israel, and life in the World to Come. The Torah, as it is written: “Happy is the man whom You afflict, Lord, whom You teach from Your Torah” (Psalms 94:12). The Land of Israel, as it is written: “For you know in your heart [that as a man rebukes his son, so the Lord your God rebukes you]” (Deuteronomy 8:5); what is written after it: “For the Lord your God will bring you [to a good land]” (Deuteronomy 8:7). The World to Come, as it is written: “For the mitzva is a lamp, the Torah is light, [and the reproofs of instruction are the way of life]” (This indicates that the way to merit everlasting life is through reproof, which involves suffering. ) (Proverbs 6:23). Anyone who chastises his son, the son adds love for his father and he honors him, as it is stated: “Admonish your son, and he will give you rest [and provide delights to your soul]” (Proverbs 29:17), and it is stated: “Admonish your son, as there is hope” (Proverbs 19:18). And he adds love for him, as it is stated: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition” – because he sought for him admonition, therefore he loves him. You find that Abraham chastised his son Isaac, taught him Torah, and guided him in his path, as it is written in Abraham’s regard: “Because Abraham heeded My voice, [and kept My commission, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws]” (Genesis 26:5), and it is written: “And this is the legacy of Isaac, Abraham’s son: [Abraham begot Isaac]” (Genesis 25:19), to teach you that he was similar to his father in every sense; in beauty, wisdom, wealth, and good deeds. Know [that Isaac internalized Abraham’s lessons and accepted his authority], for he was thirty-seven years old when his father bound him, and it is written: “And Abraham was old, advanced in years” (Genesis 24:1), and he bound him and tied him, and [Isaac] did not prevent [him from doing so]. Therefore, “Abraham gave all that was his to Isaac” (Genesis 25:5); that is: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition.” Similarly, Isaac would seek admonition for Jacob, as he taught him Torah and chastised him in his study hall, as it is stated: “Jacob was a simple man, [a dweller in tents]” (Genesis 25:27). He learned what his father taught him and then he took his leave from his father and secluded himself in the house of Ever to study Torah. Therefore, he merited blessing and inherited the land, as it is stated: “Jacob settled in the land of his father's residence, in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1). Jacob our patriarch, too, chastised his sons, chastened them, and taught them his ways, until ultimately, there were none among them who was defective, as it is written: “These are the names of the children of Israel who came to Egypt [with Jacob]” (Exodus 1:1); the verse likened them all to Jacob, as they were all righteous like he was. That is: “And he who loves him seeks for him admonition.”

The moral lesson is that just as strangers must not take for granted their right to live in their host country, so Jews must not take for granted their entitlement to the Holy Land not even after they have settled there. When our sages criticise Jacob of whom the Torah said: וישב יעקב בארץ כנען, "Jacob settled down in the land of Canaan," this is exactly what they had in mind. The fact that the Torah underlines in that very verse that Jacob's fathers had only sojourned there, only reinforces our sages' criticism (compare Genesis 37,1 and Bereshit Rabbah 84,1). An allusion to the fact that the tendency of Jews who display a vested interest in their residence in the Holy land can be counter-productive is found in the description of the land by the spies as ארץ אוכלת יושביה היא, "It is a land that consumes those who settle in it" (Numbers 13,32). This is expressed more forcefully in connection with someone selling his house in the Holy Land permanently. The Torah states clearly that the land cannot be sold permanently by ignoring the laws of return to the original owners in the Jubilee year, when G–d goes on record in Leviticus 25,23: כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, "For you are strangers and settlers with Me." The moment Jews want to treat the Holy Land as the Gentiles treat their soil, i.e. for merely secular enjoyment, the land is liable to react by "consuming" those who presume to "own" it. The spies portrayed the land of Canaan in a derogatory manner and thus profaned something sacred; their mouthings had no effect on the land. The Torah has seen fit to quote their words in order to instill in us a positive teaching:

וישב . Jacob wished to dwell in tranquility. G–d reacted to this wish by saying: "Are the righteous not satisfied with their portion in the Hereafter that they also demand tranquility in this world?" If this is the way G–d reacted when a man of Jacob's caliber wished for tranquility, what can an ordinary mortal whose life is full of transgressions look forward to? How can anyone of us expect to become the beneficiary of the good G–d pours out into this world? When the likes of us experience all this goodness of G–d in our daily lives, must we not be afraid that this is ultimately to our detriment? Are we not consuming our few merits already in this world? In order to make certain that this will not be so, we must practice charity in a generous manner and return to G–d with all our hearts. We must be mindful of the Zohar's comment on the words 37,1) ,מגורי אביו) that Jacob was afraid all his days of having offended G–d, just as his fathers had been so concerned all of their lives.

When at the beginning of פרשת וישב, we are told that Jacob made an attempt to settle in the land of Canaan to live a quiet undisturbed life, G–d objected to Jacob at that stage wanting to enjoy both the present world and the Hereafter. This world is not slated to recover from the original sin, the time when the serpent polluted Adam and Eve, until the arrival of the Messiah. Ever since that sin our world operates on the principle that the קליפה, peel, precedes the פרי, fruit. It is this principle which forms the background of Bereshit Rabbah 2,4. We are told there by Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that the reason that the Torah begins the story of Creation with the statement that there was Tohu Vavohu, in other words imperfection similar to the imperfection of the world experienced by the Jewish people in exile, was that imperfection has to precede perfection. The Midrash describes several such exiles as being alluded to in that verse. The word Tohu refers to the exile in Babylon; the prophet Jeremiah (4,23) describes the country thus. The word Bohu supposedly refers to the exile under the Medes, since we have a verse in Esther 6,14 where the king's messengers are described as ויבהלו להביא את המן, the word ויבהלו containing the letters of the word ובהו. The word חשך, which follows in Genesis 1,2, refers to the exile under the Greeks who blackened the eyes of Israel by demanding that the Israelites inscribe on the horns of their oxen that they had no further share in the G–d of Israel. Finally, the words על פני תהום, refer to the exile under the Romans, Edom, which seems bottomless like the תהום, Deep. When the Torah continues ורוח אלוקים מרחפת על פני המים, "The spirit of the Lord hovered over the expanse of the water," Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish views this statement as an allusion to the spirit of the Messiah of whom it was said in Isaiah 11,2 that: "the spirit of the Lord rested on him." How does one merit that the spirit of the Lord comes to rest on one? By the merit of repentance which is compared to water, as we know from Lamentations 2,18: "Fair Zion, shed tears like water day and night!"

ואל שדי יתן לכם רחמים לפני האיש, “and may G–d Almighty give you mercy before the man what prompted Yaakov to single out the attribute of G–d known as shadday when blessing his sons before they commenced this journey? It teaches you that Yaakov had already endured many trials in his life. These had commenced already when he was still in his mother’s womb and Esau fought with him to become the firstborn. (Compare Genesis 25,22, when his mother was distraught and asked G–d what was going on inside her womb.) The sages concluded that the two as yet unborn children had already struggled for possession of two worlds. Esau tried to kill Yaakov already as soon as he was born as is evident from Amos 1,11, על רדפו בחרב אחיו, “when he pursued his brother with the sword (simile for trying to kill him). He had to flee to Lavan to save his life, and had endured many problems while with his “uncle” for 20 years. As soon as he left there Lavan pursued him. He lists them during the encounter with Lavan. (Genesis 31,40) Esau then came towards him in order to attack him, As a result he lost a great deal of the wealth he had acquired by buying him off with a gift. Next his best loved wife died on the way and he could not even bury her in the ancestral gravesite. Next his daughter Dinah was raped, and then his beloved son Joseph was lost. When he felt that finally he could settle down to a normal life in one place, (Genesis 37,1) the problems with Joseph began. During the brothers’ first trip to Egypt Shimon, his second oldest son was incarcerated and he now had to Shimon being incarcerated and his sons forced him to allow Binyamin to travel to Egypt in order to secure the release of Shimon. He could have said, as did Job in Job 3,26: “I had no repose, no quiet no rest; trouble came.” (Based on Tanchuma on our portion, section 10.) In light of all this, Yaakov now called on that attribute of G–d to signal that he felt he had undergone sufficient tribulations, i.e. די, to warrant a favourite response to his blessing/prayer.

וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “Israel had settled down at a place known as Shittim, when the common people profaned themselves by whoring.” It is well known that whenever the Torah commences a paragraph with the word: וישב, what follows is some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 37,1 when Yaakov “settled” down and the disaster with Joseph followed and he was sold by his brothers. When in chapter 50,22 of Genesis Joseph is described as having settled down, this is followed by his announcing to his brothers his premature death. (Genesis 50,24) When Israel is described as having settled down in Egypt, (Genesis 47,27) this is followed shortly by the report about Yaakov’s (premature) sickness and death. (verse 29) In Kings I,5,5 we read that the people of Israel including the tribe of Yehudah had settled securely, this is followed by a report in chapter 11,14, by: G–d arranging a revolt by the King of Edom against Solomon’s kingdom. [The Edomites had paid annual tribute to the state of Israel since David’s time. G–d had arranged this as His response to Solomon allowing his wife to erect an altar to the Moabite idol chemosh. Ed.]

Behold the commentaries on the Rambam, his armor-bearers, and the others who felt the sun; they did not persist in studying the books of the early Geonim, such as the Bahag and the Sheiltos carefully. In fact, this [deficiency] extended to the philologist, our master, the author of the Kesef Mishneh and Beis Yosef [Rabbi Yosef Caro], (The last great codifier of rabbinical Judaism (Spain or Portugal, 1488–Safed, 1575). Although Caro is known chiefly as the author of the Shulhan Aruch and other works, it is his Beis Yosef that marks him as one of the greatest Talmudists of all time. It is a comprehensive compendium, going back to the Talmud and halachic Midrashim, discussing the pros and cons of the authorities cited by the Tur, and examining the opinions of authorities not mentioned by the latter. Beis Yosef briefly sums up and critiques thirty-two authorities, beginning with the Talmud and ending with the works of Isserlein. No other rabbinical work can compare with its wealth of material. See the description of R. Caro in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. 3.) [as demonstrated] in his book, the Bedek ha-Bayis, pertaining to the laws of mikveh. [Rabbi Caro stated] that it was [merely] by chance that the book of the Sheiltos came before him and that he found a certain item in it. Similarly with the responsa of the later Geonim of blessed memory: one cannot find them citing analyses of the works of the earlier Geonim, other than a little here and little there [on an ad hoc basis]. I do not [mean to imply], Heaven forbid, that they are to blame [for these omissions], for they were occupied with many tasks in their holy positions, (The word makom, usually translated “place,” has been translated here as “position.” Makom is can also describe a person’s state or status: see Ha’amek Davar, Ex. 3:5, and Gen. 18:33 and 30:25. An alternative translation is “in their holy locations.” Since Babylonia was well-established as a place where the Torah had been studied, it maintains a certain level of holiness and thus assists the subsequent generations in their performance of mitzvos and their study of Torah (Ha’amek Davar, Gen. 37:1).) and the light of publication was not as widespread as their need and use required, [and thus they lacked full access to the earlier geonic writings]. Therefore, the later geonic students would follow the approach of the heads [of their academies], seeking to examine the Six Orders of the Talmud in a manner familiar to Rashi and the other commentators. Thus, the new insights [of these later geonic students] depended upon these interpretations of the Talmud. In those instances when they found fresh ideas within the books of the earlier Geonim, it was an experience, as if they had found mandrakes (See Metiv Shir, Song of Songs 8:14, where the Netziv sees mandrakes as symbolic of great spiritual joy.) in places where no one had previously trod. Therefore, pertaining to many laws, they did not see the [earlier] sources and roots.

A Midrashic approach to the word עשו is found in Bereshit Rabbah 39,14 where it is understood as applying to the converts Avraham and Sarah managed to make in Charan and whom they took with them to the land of Canaan. Avraham converted the males, Sarah the females. This is why the Torah speaks of that phenomenon in the plural, i.e. “they had made, each one separately.” If only Avraham had been busy proselytising the Torah should have written אשר עשה “whom he had made.” We also find that Yaakov did the same as his grandfather Avraham as the Torah speaks of his sojourn in the land of Canaan in these words (Genesis 37,1) וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו, “and Yaakov settled in the land in which his (grand)father had had succeeded in making converts” (Bereshit Rabbah 84,4). From this you learn that Yaakov was also making converts.

The words עד הנה mean: “until the measure of their sin is full.” Actually, the Torah should have written: יבואו הנה “they will come here.” The reason the Torah chose to write ישובו הנה ‘they will return here,” is to point out that they will be considered as if they had already been settled in the land of Canaan previously seeing that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov and his children had lived in Canaan before descending to Egypt. Remember that Yitzchak had never left the land of Canaan. Concerning Yaakov the Torah had written וישב יעקב בארץ “Yaakov settled in the land.” This is why now the Torah wrote that the fourth generation would return “here.” They would return to what had already been their land. Another message contained in these words may be an allusion to the sanctity of the land, the land in which there is found the “gateway to heaven” (Genesis 28, 17). This means that the Sanctuary of the terrestrial regions is on the soil of the land of Canaan. This is the point from which the souls ascend to the celestial regions. This is also where they enter the terrestrial regions. It is appropriate therefore to describe the land of Canaan as the place to which the souls return. The righteous and pious people therefore experience an urge to die near that location in order for their souls to immediately find the path to the celestial regions.

וישב בין קדש ובין שור, the Torah did not bother to tell us precisely where Avraham settled. Later on, we are told that he settled in Gerar, the capital of the land of the Philistines. The part of the verse mentioning this fact is not related to the earlier part of the verse. Besides, the terms וישב and ויגר are totally different from one another, the former speaking of someone settling down with a view to remaining there for a long period, whereas the term ויגר always reflects the intention of the person described to remain there only for a relatively brief period of time, as for instance in Genesis 37,1 where when Yaakov settled down, the Torah contrasts this with the fact that his father and grandfather could not settle down there permanently but had only sojourned there,מגורי אביו. It is customary for Scripture to employ different words when repeating basically the same message. Perhaps, initially, Avraham had settled in one of the locations in the regions such as באר לחי רואי, subsequently moving to Gerar, seeing that באר לחי רואי was situated between Kadesh and Shur, as we know from Genesis 16,4.

[וישב בארץ מדין AND HE ABODE IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN — the word וישב means he stayed there, as (Genesis 37:1) “And Jacob abode (וישב)‎”.]

settling storm camping and dwelling an expression of “the land of the sojournings of (מְגוּרֵי)” (Gen. 37:1), and a similar case is “and a whirling (מִתְחוֹלֵל) storm” (supra 23:19) stated in the other verse is the same as this for both of them are expressions of camping.

The explanation is “that they made in Haran” [12:5]. Abraham converted the men and Sarah converted the women. They took these people with them. Isaac did the same, as the verse says, “Jacob was settled in the land where his father sojourned” [Genesis 37:1]. (The Hebrew term for sojourned is “megurei” which is similar to the word for convert “ger.”) This means, Jacob lived in the city where his father, Isaac, had done conversions. Jacob did the same, as the verse says, “Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, rid yourselves of the alien gods” [Genesis 35:2]. This means, remove the false gods from yourselves. (Bahya, Genesis, 12:5.)

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everywhere that it is stated: And he dwelt, it is nothing other than an expression of pain, of an impending calamity, as it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1). It is stated: “And Jacob dwelt in the land where his father had sojourned in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1), and it is stated thereafter: “And Joseph brought evil report of them to his father” (Genesis 37:2), which led to the sale of Joseph. And it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt in the land of Goshen” (Genesis 47:27), and it is stated thereafter: “And the time drew near that Israel was to die” (Genesis 47:29). It is stated: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (I Kings 5:5), and it is stated thereafter: “And the Lord raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom” (I Kings 11:14).

Yaakov settled in the land of his father’s residence, in the land of Canaan.

And Jakob dwelt in peace in the land of the sojourning of his fathers, in the land of Kenaan.

These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old, and shepherded the flock with his brothers. (Genesis 37:2) The word “shepherd” (ro’eh) implies “to unite, join or link together,” as in the words “brotherliness” and “friendship.” (The Hebrew word ro’eh is grammatically connected to the word for “friendship” – re’ut.) A shepherd is called a ro’eh because he brings the flock together in one place, lest they become scattered. Thus, Joseph united his brothers – that is, all of Israel and the sparks of the Divine Presence. (The concept of mystical unifications – yichudim – is one of the central teachings of the Baal Shem Tov, and operates on many levels. The basic level is the recognition of the presence of the Creator in all aspects of creation, be they physical, emotional, conceptual, and even spiritual. Thus, the Baal Shem Tov said: “Whatever you see – remember G-d. If you feel love, remember the love of G-d. If you experience fear, recall the fear of G-d. Even when you go to the bathroom, think to yourself, I am removing the bad from the good, so that the good will remain in the service of G-d. This is the meaning of unification” (Tzivos HaRivash, p.3b). On a deeper level, it means the mystical recombination of the letters of creation, especially in prayer and Torah study, that can produce a revelation of the Divine Oneness in the world. In the verse above, the Baal Shem Tov is saying that Joseph, who represents the Tzaddik, is able to see the divinity in each Jew, and through this, uplift all of Israel to the Father in Heaven. Alternatively, Joseph could see the Hebrew letters that constitute all of reality, and combine them in patterns that would reveal the Divine Presence in creation.) He uplifted and repaired all of them by means of the holy mystical unifications that he performed. He did this with the “flock,” which implies Unifications. (The three letters of the Hebrew word for flock, tzon, can be divided into tz-o (tzade aleph), whose numerical value is 91, and nun. The number 91 is also the numerical value (gematria) of two of G-d’s holy names together – the Tetragrammaton, Y-H-V-H (26), and the name Ado-nai (65). The union of these names represents the complete integration of the spiritual and the physical, from the first emanations from G-d, until malchus, the world in which we live. (See Likutey Moharan I:66.) The letter nun usually represents the world of Binah, which corresponds to the revelation of the world-to-come, and is the sefirah through which Divine blessing flows into the world. All this is alluded to in the word tzon – the union of G-d’s two names, which leads to a subsequent outflow of blessing in the world. Thus, R. Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye writes, in the name of the Baal Shem Tov: “A human being in this world is composed of matter and form (i.e., the material and the spiritual), and through him, the lower world and the upper world are joined, and a union is created between the two names Y-H-V-H and Ado-nai, which have the numerical value of 91, from the world tzon. Whereas the effluence that pours forth from there is the expansion of the nun” (Tzafna Paneach, Teruma). It is also possible that the Baal Shem Tov uses the term tzon to represent this idea, because a flock is a group of animals that are joined together, and convey the idea of union. Furthermore, the word tzon is from the Hebrew word tze, which means “to go out,” and represents the idea of that which emanates from a source. (See Torah Ohr, by the Ba’al HaTanya, VaYetze, p. 23c, who discusses this idea).) Degel Machane Ephraim, Vayeshev

According to Jewish mystics, Joseph was the paradigm of virtue and righteousness, the personification of tzaddik yesod olam, a man of such holiness that his merit sustains the entire world. Joseph was also Jacob’s favorite son, and they shared a special relationship. (See Gen. 30:25 and Rashi’s comment on that verse; Gen. 37:2 and the respective Rashi; also Gen. 37:11, 37:35, 45:27-28.) When Jacob lay dying he called Joseph and requested burial in the Land of Israel. Although Joseph promised that he would ensure his father’s interment in Israel (Gen. 47:30), Jacob was not satisfied and demanded that an oath be sworn in God’s name: “And he [Jacob] said ‘Swear to me’ and he [Joseph] swore to him, and Israel [another name for Jacob] bowed back toward the head of the bed” (Gen. 47:31).

INCREASING THE LIGHT Earlier (§11), Reb Noson explained that the basis of the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned the appropriateness of drawing down a perception of Godliness to those on the lowest spiritual levels. He now applies this subject to the opposition raised against the tzaddikim in his time—especially Rebbe Nachman—who devoted themselves to bringing even the most spiritually distant closer to HaShem. Now, the aforementioned dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerned drawing near to HaShem those people who are so very spiritually distant from Him that, strictly speaking, it would be unseemly to draw them close. There we saw that Beit Shammai states that we “keep decreasing” the number of lights in order to conceal the light from the spiritually distant so they will not be drawn closer to HaShem. Beit Hillel, however, states that we “keep increasing” the number of lights, because we need to fashion appropriate vessels and constrictions so as to illuminate with His light even the spiritually distant, so that they too will be drawn near.

And it was specifically Yosef who was able to bless him with chein. This is because Yosef, more than anyone else, embodied the aspect of Yaakov, as in (Genesis 37:2), “These are the chronicles of Yaakov: Yosef.” He was the essence of [Yaakov’s] chronicles, for Yaakov and Yosef are considered as one (Zohar I, 176b).

Therefore, of Yosef it is said: “Yosef brought bad reports of them [to their father]” (Genesis 37:2). This is the element of severities, since the left hand pushes away (Sotah 47a). , “I am seeking my brothers” (Genesis 37:16). This is the element of benevolences, since the right hand brings close (Sotah, ibid .) .

And this is the concept of “These are the offspring of Yaakov—Yosef” (Genesis 37:2). That is, the begetting of offspring comes about primarily through Yaakov and Yosef. Yaakov is the concept of charity, as it is written, “You execute justice and charity in Yaakov” (Psalms 99:4). And the begetting of offspring is primarily through charity, {the vessel for receiving the influx of Supernal Pleasantness. And, as will be explained below, Yosef is the concept of Pleasantness}.

The Midrash (Tehillim 30:2) states, "I praise you Hashem for you have lifted me up." The Rav of Pershischa explained that דליתני (lifted me up) implies both elevation and humility. Hashem elevates a person while keeping them humble, allowing closeness to Him, as reflected in “He lifts the lowly” (Shacharis birkas krias shma). The Zohar interprets “Better a poor but wise youth” (Kohelet 4:13) as the good inclination, which is humble and wise. One who is wary of the evil inclination and fears sin experiences constant renewal. In contrast, comfort leads to stagnation. Wisdom (חכמה) is seen as כח מה (“strength from nothing”), recognizing that all strength comes from Hashem, as indicated by “the beginning of wisdom is the fear of Hashem.” The word דליתני also suggests renewal and humility. Yosef, described as "a youth" (Bereishis 37:2), signifies constant renewal through התעוררות (awakening). During Chanukah, Bnei Yisrael's lowliness allowed Hashem to perform miracles. As Tehillim (40:2) states, "I put my hope in Hashem... He lifted me out of the miry pit... and set my feet on a rock," illustrating that humility and calling out to Hashem bring salvation and renewal.

“These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef…” (Bereishis 37:2). Ovadia 1:18 states, “The House of Yaakov is a fire and the House of Yosef is a flame, and the House of Eisav like straw.” The Midrash explains that just as a single spark can destroy a large pile of straw, so can Yosef, the flame, overcome Eisav’s forces. Yaakov symbolizes the Torah, which is above nature. To internalize the Torah’s light, one needs strong desire and enthusiasm, embodied by Yosef the Tzadik. Rashi (Bereishis 30:25) notes that a fire (Yaakov) without a flame (Yosef) cannot reach far. This implies that the more one feels distant from Hashem, the stronger their desire to draw closer. Thus, “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Yosef” means that through the desire and passion represented by Yosef, Yaakov’s influence extends and impacts the world.

Yosef brought an evil report about his brothers to his father (Bereishis 37:2). It is clear that Yosef, the tzadik, was not involved in lashon hara (evil speech). However, a true tzadik cannot tolerate even the slightest hint of evil, similar to Eliyahu Hanavi, who said, “I have been extremely zealous” (Malachim 1:19:10). The tribes understood that if Yosef remained with his father, they would be marginalized because Yosef was exceedingly holy and separated from worldly matters. Yosef is called “the crown (נזיר) of his brothers” and “בן זקונים,” signifying his purity and complete detachment from any evil. Although his brothers were also tzadikim, Yosef had to be in Mitzrayim first to later realize that his brothers were righteous as well.

Now, it is written, (Genesis 37:2) “These are the offspring of Yaakov; Yosef.”

אלה תולדות יעקב, “these are the descendants of Yaakov;” wherever a paragraph commences with the word: אלה, this means that this a paragraph that is not the continuation of the subject which had been discussed immediately before it. In this instance, the word is used to remind the reader that the personalities referred to immediately before this paragraph, were all wicked people, i.e. bastards, born of parents guilty of practicing incest. The personalities who are the subject of our chapter were all righteous, born from parents who had formed legitimate unions. They are the descendants of Yehudah and Joseph.

אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these were the descendants of Yaakov: Joseph;” the reason why this has been repeated here is because the Torah had interrupted reporting about Yaakov’s children who had been sired and born while he was with Lavan, Joseph having been the last of those. We find that the Torah employed a similar manner when describing Noach (Genesis 5,8) as siring three sons, interrupting with a description of the sins which led to the deluge, before returning to the subject in Genesis 6,9 with the words: אלה תולדות נח, although we had already known who his children were.

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, “who was tending flocks with his brothers;” The Torah calls the sons of Leah Joseph’s ”brothers,” as they were the sons of their father’s principal wives; it did not refer to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah by the same term. [although both Leah’s sons as well as those of the maids were half brothers. Ed.] An alternate exegesis of why the word אחיו was used here:והוא נער, “he was only tending flocks as long as he was still very young;” at that point it was not considered as below the dignity of the sons of Yaakov’s secondary wives to be tending flocks with them. The verse is actually truncated, and the complete text should have been: והוא נער היה רועה בצאן את אחיו בני בלהה ובני זלפה, “as long as he was a young boy he had been tending flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.” It is not surprising that he reported on what he considered misconduct by these “brothers,” seeing that he was still very immature, i.e. merely a .נער

בצאן, we would have expected the Torah to have written either “את צאן, or הצאן.” The reason why the Torah used the prefix ב, is to draw our attention to the fact that his major occupation was to watch if he could find fault with the manner in which these “brothers” fulfilled their tasks. He was also concerned that his “brothers” would not do something that would harm his father’s sheep, as he was extremely loyal to his father.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, “Joseph reported negative reports about them;” (no wonder that they all began to hate him as a tale bearer). The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah hated him as talebearer, and his other brothers hated him because he was a favorite of their father. They were therefore afraid that in due course their father would appoint him as his firstborn. When the Torah writes (in verse four: וישנאו אותו, “they hated him,”) it refers to all of the brothers except Binyamin who was only 10 years old. Each group of brothers had a different reason for hating him. They were afraid that their father would treat Joseph as their grandfather Yitzchok had treated his son Esau, because of emotional attachment, not based on objective considerations.

The meaning of These are the generations of Jacob is: these are the events which befell him and the incidents which came upon him. Toledot (generations) comes from the same root as yeled (bring forth) in What a day may bring forth (yeled) (Prov. 27:1). (Toledot is not rendered generations but events, as evidenced by the word of the same root, yod, lamed, dalet in Prov. 27:1.)

BEING STILL A LAD, EVEN WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH, AND WITH THE SONS OF ZILPAH. The sons of the concubines (the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) made Joseph their attendant (servant) since he was their younger brother. This was the evil report of them which he brought unto their father. Had the children of Leah, the mistress of the house, made Joseph their attendant, then no wrong would have been done. (Joseph would thus not have had any evil report of his brothers to bring unto their father.) The view that evil report pertains to limbs torn from living animals is a Midrashic interpretation. (According to the Midrash Joseph told his father that his brothers ate limbs torn from living animals. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 84:7.) That Joseph did not bring an evil report to Jacob concerning Leah’s children is clear from the fact that Scripture only mentions the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah in our verse. (Our verse mentions only the sons of Zilpah and the sons of Bilhah. Hence the pronominal suffix of dibbtam (report of them) must refer to Zilpah and Bilhah’s sons. This comment is either a proof of what I.E. wrote above, viz., that Joseph spoke only about the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah (Krinsky), or its purpose is to negate a Midrashic statement to the effect that Joseph spoke ill only of Leah’s children, viz., that he told Jacob that Leah’s children refer to the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah as the children of slave girls (Filwarg).)

אלה תולדות, These are the developments, etc. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 12,3 say that wherever a paragraph commences with the word אלה this represents a contrast to and criticism of what has been reported previously. On the other hand, when a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, it suggests a continuation of what preceded it. Here the word אלה is intended to criticise or disqualify what Esau had done. If that was indeed the intent of the Torah it is unnecessary seeing that Esau himself was unfit; anything he did would be improper anyway.

The words היה רעה את אחיו בצאן refer to the sheep the brothers were accused of eating. The words והוא נער refer to Joseph's earlier childhood during which he had spent much time with the sons of Bilhah. The reason the Torah mentions נשי אביו is to tell us that Joseph did not discriminate against the sons of the handmaidens but related to their mothers as "his father's wives." This is especially mentioned as only Joseph treated Bilhah and Zilpah as wives of Jacob in the full sense of the word. According to the Midrash there Joseph suspected his brothers of eating parts of the sheep while the animal was still alive. The Torah disproved this suspicion later when it reported that the brothers even slaughtered an animal, which they were presumably not going to eat, before they dipped Joseph's tunic in its blood. [I suppose the author feels that the word רעה, tending, could also be read as רעה, evil, to account for this allusion to Joseph's suspicions of his brothers. Ed.] Joseph's suspecting his brothers of immoral behaviour may have stemmed from their viewing the handmaidens as merely slaves and their belittling the sons of the handmaidens. When Joseph observed how the brothers belittled their half-brothers this may have caused him to begin to belittle the sons of Leah instead. The author discusses the halachic aspects of the issue of someone who sleeps with a handmaid, concluding that at any rate someone of the stature of Jacob would certainly do so only in order to raise the woman in question to a higher status, and the children would automatically be free men.

The problem with all the above speculations in the Midrash is why, if four of the brothers were treated as inferior, all of them voted against Joseph and agreed to sell him? Perhaps it was because Joseph had included them in the suspicions about their eating habits which he had related to his father. Alternatively, these four brothers exploited that opportunity to gain favour with the sons of Leah although they themselves harboured no ill feelings against Joseph.

We also need to analyse the meaning of תלדת יעקב יוסף. What happened to the other tribes? Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 claim that Joseph was the principal descendant of Jacob. Others say that it reflects the similarities Jacob and Joseph experienced in their respective fates. Both were already born without a foreskin, etc. Of course, this is all homiletics.

I believe that the plain meaning of the verse is what the other sages say, namely that Jacob wanted to enjoy peace and quiet in this world; as a result he suffered the upsetting experience with Joseph, literally, קפץ עליו רוגזו של יוסף. Joseph's sale, etc, is all blamed on Jacob's desire to enjoy peace and serenity on this earth. We therefore must understand the verse thus: "Jacob wanted to settle down; the consequence of Jacob's settling down was Joseph (his sale, etc)." The Torah teaches us the basic lesson that man brings upon himself whatever befalls him. Harm does not originate with G'd who is the source of all that is good by definition; Jacob was no exception to this rule.

Our verse also wants to inform us that in spite of all the various trials such as the life and death struggle with Esau, his oppression by Laban, etc., which Jacob had experienced up until that point in his life, these were all as nothing compared to what he would still have to endure through the sale of Joseph, etc. This is why the Torah commences the paragraph with the word אלה. This word is meant to put his previous problems into a new perspective.

Another meaning of these words is explained in Sotah 36 where we are told that Joseph was actually meant to become the father of twelve tribes; he lost that opportunity on account of his involvement with the wife of Potiphar, when, according to the Midrash, he was able to resist the lures of that lady only by ejaculating semen through his ten fingertips instead of through the regular channel for such an acitivity. As a result he became the founder of only two tribes, Ephrayim and Menashe. The defective spelling of the word תלדת, minimum plural two, hints at the above mentioned aggadah. The word אלה "cancelled" the previous intention to make Joseph founder of twelve tribes.

Still another meaning that we can find in this verse is based on Psalms 77,16 בני יעקב ויוסף סלה. "The sons of Jacob and Joseph, selah." Sanhedrin 19 explains that the reason that the sons of Jacob and Joseph are lumped together here is that Joseph provided the brothers and their families with food during the famine. Whenever someone assumes the burden of feeding someone else he is entitled to be called by that someone's name. This is alluded to in the sequence of the words תלדת יעקב יוסף, "the descendants of Jacob were possible only by the grace of Joseph." These words could also be translated as "the descendants of Jacob and Joseph." We have several examples of this in the Bible, such as in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון. The meaning is ראובן ושמעון. Here too we must mentally add a conjunctive letter ו before the name יוסף. The Torah provides the rationale why the whole family is included in the name Joseph, i.e. he was the whole family's provider.

בן שבע עשרה שנה. seventeen years old. The reason the Torah had to tell us Joseph's age was because we know from Berachot 55 that if a person had a good dream he should wait up to twenty two years for it to become true. Had we not been informed here that Joseph was seventeen at the time he had these dreams we would not have known that rule.

The Torah also alludes to another lesson mentioned in Kidushin 29. Rabbi Chisdah there describes himself as superior to his friends because he married at sixteen. The evil urge is not as strong in a person who is sixteen as it is in a person who is seventeen years of age. By telling us Joseph's age when the sale occurred we know that his evil urge was very active within him at that time. This may have accounted for his provocative conduct towards his brothers and the fact that he engaged in tale-bearing.

היה דעה את אחיו בצאן, he used to tend the flocks with his brothers. The wording seems unusual. We would have expected: היה רעה הצאן את אחיו. Besides, why did the Torah add the words: "he was a lad," when we are told his age in the same breath? Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 explains this by saying that Joseph indulged in childish activities. If that were true why would he do so only with the children of Bilhah? Rashi explains that he felt at home in the environment of Bilhah who had been the handmaid of his mother. This is even more far-fetched; why did the Torah mention נשי אביו, "his father's wives? We must also know what precisely the רבתם רעה, the evil reports about the brothers which Joseph brought to his father consisted of? The Torah is not intended to complicate an issue by speaking in riddles but to help us understand it! We believe therefore that the Torah wanted us to know that this is what happened.

אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, “These are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” It would have seemed appropriate to list all of Yaakov’s sons. and daughters. According to the plain meaning of the text they are all subsumed under the name of Joseph seeing he combined all the good characteristics possessed by his brothers in his own person. He possessed the birthright which normally should have been Reuven’s as we know from Chronicles I 5,1 “when he desecrated the couch of his father, his birthright was given to (the tribe of) Joseph.” He possessed the prophetic qualities of Levi as mentioned by the Torah when he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41,13). He also combined within himself the Royal Powers of Yehudah as the Torah testifies in Genesis 42,6 “Joseph was the one who ruled the land (earth?).” He possessed the intelligence for which Issachar is famed, as we know from Genesis 41,40 “there is none as wise and full of insight such as you.” According to a Midrashic approach as found both in Tanchuma and Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph was selected as Yaakov’s prime issue as he was so like his father. This is what the Torah meant when writing כי בן זקונים הוא לו, that his features resembled those of his father. He also resembled his father in that many experiences which Yaakov endured were more or less duplicated in the life of Joseph. Whereas Yaakov had been pursued by his brother Esau, Joseph was persecuted by his brothers. Just as Yaakov’s mother had been barren for many years, so Joseph’s mother had been barren for many years. Just as Yaakov was born without a foreskin, so Joseph was born without a foreskin. We derive this from the fact that Yaakov was described by the Torah as איש תם, a perfectly formed human being, i.e. one that did not need to be circumcised in order to make him whole. The term תם is only used in connection with circumcised people as G’d told Avraham that in order to become תמים, perfect, whole, he had to circumcise himself (Genesis 17,1). The reason the sages believe that Joseph too was born without a foreskin is because the Torah equates Yaakov and Joseph in writing יעקב יוסף, as if to say that what applied to Yaakov applied to Joseph also. These similarities also showed up in that just as Yaakov’s mother experienced a difficult pregnancy and birth, so did Joseph’s mother experience difficulty when giving birth to Binyamin. Just as Yaakov’s mother gave birth to only two sons so did Joseph’s mother give birth to only two sons. Yaakov and Joseph both married while outside the land of Canaan. The children of both Yaakov and Joseph were born outside the land of Canaan. Both Yaakov and Joseph experienced the company of angels protecting them. Rabbi Yannai (compare Bereshit Rabbah 84,14) claims that Joseph was met by three angels while he searched for his brothers. He bases himself on the word איש, “man,” appearing three separate times in verses 15-16 in our chapter. Just as Yaakov emerged from a dream containing a vision spiritually uplifted, so Joseph emerged similarly uplifted after having certain dreams. Just as the environment of Yaakov (the house of Lavan, and, according to some sources the entire region) experienced G’d’s blessing, as well as the famine coming to an end when he descended to Egypt, so Joseph’s presence both in the house of Potiphar and in Egypt generally proved a blessing for all those around him. Just as Yaakov died in Egypt and his remains were embalmed there only to be buried in the land of Israel eventually, so Joseph died in Egypt, was embalmed there and eventually was reburied in the land of Israel. A kabbalistic approach to the sequence יעקב יוסף in our verse adds that Yaakov was the “cherub” (part of G’d’s entourage on earth) and so was Joseph. This is the mystical meaning of Sukkah 5, אפי רברבי ואפי זוטרי, that Yaakov was “the wing of a larger bird and Joseph the wing of a smaller bird, respectively.” Both Yaakov and Joseph have been referred to as נער, “lad” on different occasions. We read of Israel: כי נער ישראל ואהבו, for Israel was a “lad,” and He (G’d) loved him (Hoseah 11,1). Of Joseph we read in our verse that he was a נער.

ויבא יוסף, “Joseph conveyed, etc.” Whenever we encounter the expression מביא דבה, “conveying information reflecting negatively on someone,” the Bible speaks about factual information not about slander. It means that he who conveyed the information backed it up with proof. When the Bible uses the expression הוציא דבה, however, this indicates that the information conveyed was slanderous, was untrue. A classic example of this is found when the Torah speaks of the information conveyed by the spies whom Moses had sent to the land of Canaan (Numbers 13,32. The Torah writes ויוציאו דבת הארץ. “They brought forth an (evil) report of the land.” We have a similar example in Proverbs 10,18 מוציא דבה הוא כסיל, “if someone spreads slander he is a fool.” It is clear that Solomon means untruths. We also have a verse in Job 8,10 ומלבם יוציאו מילים, “and they invent words (of a character-assassinating nature) which originate only in their hearts.”

את דבתם רעה, “evil reports of them.” Although we know that the expression דבה by itself refers to something of a negative nature, the Torah added the word רעה, “evil,” to underline the exaggerated nature of such evil. Rashi understands the word to teach that Joseph reported every single misdemeanour which he saw the sons of Leah commit. He reported that they were eating flesh from live animals, that they related to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah with disdain as inferiors, and suspected them of possibly engaging in illicit sexual relations. As a result, he was punished in three ways. Nachmanides writes that if indeed Joseph had stood up for the rights of his half-brothers the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah we would have expected these four brothers to have tried to rescue Joseph from his attackers. Should you argue that they might have been afraid of the sons of Leah, this is hardly likely considering there were four of them and that Reuven would most likely side with them in any quarrel, and, so of course, would Joseph himself. So there would be six against six. Nachmanides therefore concludes that Joseph badmouthed the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah and that explains why they were hostile towards him. The hostility of the sons of Leah is described in the Torah as the result of the sons of Leah (“the brothers” in verse four) observing that their father loved Joseph the most. As a result of these two factors Joseph was thoroughly hated by all his brothers except Binyamin. The sequence of the first four verses then is best understood as follows: “These are the descendants of Yaakov; Joseph was seventeen years of age at the time these events occurred and he was engaged in tending the sheep with his half-brothers, the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, wives of his father. He badmouthed them to their father. When the brothers (sons of Leah) noted that their father loved Joseph best, they hated him and could not speak peacefully about him.” This explains why all the brothers present at the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites were in full agreement.

אלה תולדות יעקב, the meaning of the word תולדות in our context here is “happenings, developments.” It includes all kinds of traumas Yaakov would experience. Genesis 6,9 similarly introduced what happened to Noach with these words. The philological bridge to the word תולדות when it refers to biological progeny is Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will give birth to.”

יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה, when he was still only 17 years old.

רועה את אחיו בצאן, mark the fact that the Torah wrote בצאן “with the flocks,” instead of הצאן, “the flocks,” for being relatively young he was only allowed to work together with his brothers instead of being allowed to tends flocks all by himself. He was still a trainee.

והוא נער, he was always going with them when they were engaged in tending the flocks.

נשי אביו, the term “wives of,“ emphasises that they were full fledged wives, as had been stated when each of these women became married to Yaakov, i.e. “לאשה.” (compare 30,9; 30,4) Joseph’s keeping company with the sons of these women was in no way something disparaging for him, as he was not only their half brother just as he was a half brother to the sons of Leah, but they were his social equals.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers hated him, i.e. both the sons of the former servant maids with whom he was being raised, as well as the sons of Leah to whom he felt superior because he enjoyed preferential treatment by his father. As a result, the brothers sought pretexts to treat him meanly. Yaakov was angry at the brothers on behalf of Joseph, interpreting the brothers’ hatred of Joseph as jealousy due to his loving Joseph excessively. (verses 3 and 4). In Bereshit Rabbah 84,7 we are told that according to Rabbi Meir Joseph told his fathers that the brothers were suspect of violating the commandment not to eat flesh from a still living animal, whereas Rabbi Yehudah is supposed to have said that Joseph accused them of treating the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain, referring to them as “slaves.” Rabbi Shimon is reported as saying that Joseph accused the brothers of casting lustful glances at the local Canaanite girls. Rabbi Yehudah bar Seymon claims that G’d repaid Joseph for all three accusations as we derive from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” G’d said to him: “you accused your brothers of violating the law of אבר מן החי, you will be a witness that even when they were engaged in a sinful enterprise such as dipping your cloak in blood before presenting it to your father, they first slaughtered the male goat ritually, as is required when they would eat it. You accused them of calling the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah slaves, that is why you yourself were sold into slavery (Psalms 105, 17) You accused your brothers of looking lecherously at the local girls, I will cause you to be tempted by this very phenomenon.” This is why the Torah described the wife of Potiphar attempting to seduce Joseph (39,7)

THESE ARE THE ‘TOLDOTH’ (GENERATIONS) OF JACOB. And this is an account of the generations of Jacob. These are their settlements and the events which occurred to them until they attained settlement status. The first cause was Joseph, being seventeen years old, etc. It was through this incident that it happened that they descended to Egypt. This is the literal explanation of the text, which permits each detail to fall into its place. These are the words of Rashi. But the word toldoth cannot apply to a settlement. (Ramban thus understood the above text of Rashi as interpreting the word toldoth as having reference to Jacob’s settlement. Mizrachi, however, points out that Rashi’s intent is that the word Eileh (these are) refers to the settlements, while the word toldoth is to be understood in its usual sense as meaning “children.” The sense of the verse thus becomes: “These are the settlements of the children of Jacob.”) And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted thus]: “These are the events which happened to him, and the occurrences which befell him. This is similar in meaning to the usage in the verse, For thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. (Proverbs 27:1. The Hebrew is yolad yom (a day may bring forth). Similarly, according to Ibn Ezra, the word toldoth, which has the same roots as yolad, here means the events which evolved.) But a person is not said to bring forth his events; it is only to days that events can be ascribed. (Ramban makes the point that toldoth can mean events when it modifies a period of time. However, when referring to a person, as in the present verse, it cannot have this meaning. Ramban thus takes issue with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.) Now perhaps the verse, according to Ibn Ezra, is saying, “These are the events which the days of Jacob brought forth.” The correct interpretation in my opinion is as follows: “These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph and his brothers, whom Scripture will mention further on.” Scripture here adopts a concise approach to their names since it already mentioned them above. (Above, 35:23-26.) But the intent of the verse is to say that these are the generations of Joseph and his brothers to whom the following happened. It is also possible that the word Eileh (these are) alludes to all those mentioned in this book: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons. (Deuteronomy 10:22. The listing of the names of sixty-nine of these seventy people is found further on “in this book,” 46:8-27. Jochebed, who was born as they entered Egypt, is the seventieth.) Just as in the chapter, These are the generations of Esau, (Above, Chapter 36.) Scripture mentioned sons and sons’ sons, kings and chiefs, including all that there had been among them up to the time the Torah was given, (See Ramban above, 36:40.) so will Scripture count the generations of Jacob, his sons and grandsons, and all his seed, mentioning only the outstanding details in their generations.

AND THE LAD WAS WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH. His actions were those of youth: he would touch up his eyes and dress his hair. With the sons of Bilhah, that is to say, he associated with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being the sons of handmaids, and he therefore befriended them. Their evil report — he told his father about every wrong which he discerned in his brothers, the sons of Leah. This is the language of Rashi. But if this be so, why did the children of the handmaids not save him later on, inasmuch as he loved and befriended them, and told his father about his brothers’ slighting them. And if we say that they feared their brothers, they were four, (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) and Reuben was with them, (As expressly stated further on in Verses 21-22.) and, with Joseph himself, [they made a total of six]. Surely they would have prevailed against them especially when considering that the remaining five sons of Leah would not wage war against them. Moreover, it appears from Scripture that all (“All,” except Reuben, the eldest, and Benjamin, the youngest, (Rabbeinu Bachya, p. 306, in my edition.)) of the brothers concurred in the sale of Joseph. However, according to our Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah, (84:7.) he uttered slander against all of them. (And not, as Rashi has it, that the evil report concerned only the sons of Leah.) In my opinion the correct interpretation is that this verse returns to explain that which it mentioned above, and its purport [is as if the phrases in the verse were transposed as follows]: Joseph being a lad of seventeen years, was feeding the flock together with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. A similar case requiring transposition of phrases is found in this Seder: (Sedrah or Parsha (section).) And they dreamed a dream both of them in one night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison. (40:5.) The verse returns to explain the word shneihem (both of them) which it had mentioned at the outset. Its purport, [after the phrases have been suitably transposed, is as follows]: And both of them dreamed a dream, the butler and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were bound in the prison, each man according to the interpretation of his dream. There are many similar verses. It may be that the word v’hu (and he was) requires another similar word, as if it were written: “and he was a lad, and he was with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah, who were his father’s wives.” The verse thus states that because he was a lad he was constantly with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives, never being separated from them on account of his youth, for their father had commanded them to watch over him and serve him, not the sons of the mistresses, and he brought an evil report concerning them (The sons of Bilhah and Zilpah.) to their father. It was for this reason that these four brothers (Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.) hated Joseph. Following that, the verse says that his father loved him. Now when the other brothers (The sons of Leah.) saw that their father loved him more than all, they became jealous of him and they hated him. Thus Joseph is found to be hated by all: the sons of the mistresses were jealous of him because Jacob loved him more than them although they were also sons of a mistress as he was, and the sons of the handmaids, who would otherwise not have been jealous of his superior position over them, hated him because he brought their evil report to their father. The purpose of the redundant expression, dibatham ra’ah (their evil report), is to magnify, (I.e., to indicate that the report was of an exceedingly evil nature.) for dibah itself connotes evil. (Otherwise, why does Scripture add the word ra’ah (evil)? It does so in order to magnify the evil nature of the report.) Now according to the opinion of Rashi it is possible for dibah to be a good report. Thus when Scripture uses the expression, “he brings dibah“, it means that he tells what he sees, (He reports the truth.) but when it uses the term, he bringeth forth ‘dibah,’ it refers to the fool who speaks falsehood. (This opinion that dibah connotes evil only when used in conjunction with the word motzi (bring forth) is borne out by Numbers 13:32.) In line with the literal meaning of Scripture, the fact that it calls one a na’ar (lad) when he was seventeen years of age (Ramban’s intent is to disagree with Rashi’s interpretation of na’ar, which is that his actions were those of a youth.) presents no difficulty for since he was the youngest among them, it calls him by that name, indicating that he was not as sturdy as his brothers and therefore needed to be with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah on account of his youth. Now of Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, it is written, And Rehoboam was young and faint-hearted and could not withstand them, (II Chronicles 13:7.) yet he was forty-one years old when he began to reign. (Ibid., 12:13.) Similarly the verse: Is it well with the lad Absalom? (II Samuel 18:32. Now although Scripture does not state how old Absalom was at the time of his death, it would appear certain that he was about thirty years old since he was born to David in Hebron (ibid., 3:3-5), and David ruled thirty-three years in Jerusalem. The rebellion of Absalom occurred three years before David’s death (see Seder Hadoroth, year 2921). Hence Absalom, at his death, was at least thirty years old, yet David calls him na’ar.) And Benjamin, upon going down to Egypt, was older than Joseph was now, (For Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years. Therefore Benjamin must have been at least thirty years old at the time he went down to Egypt.) and yet Scripture frequently refers to him as na’ar. (Further, 44:31 and 33.) Now Onkelos translated v’hu na’ar as “he grew up with the sons of Bilhah.” Thus the verse states that from the time he was a lad he was in their company. They raised him as a father would, and they served him. This interpretation is also correct according to the literal interpretation of Scripture, which I offered as an explanation, namely that Scripture relates that he brought evil report concerning [the sons of the handmaids, who, according to Onkelos, raised him. This is why they hated him, whereas] the sons of the mistresses hated him because of their jealousy, as explained above. (Ramban thus indicates that the authoritative interpretation of Onkelos is here consistent with his own.) The meaning of the expression, His father’s wives, is that they were his “wives” for he took them as such. Scripture calls them “handmaids” only when they are mentioned together with Rachel and Leah, who were their mistresses. Similarly, And he put the handmaids and their children foremost, (Above, 33:2.) as if to say that because they were handmaids of Rachel and Leah, Jacob placed them before them in a more exposed position. Similarly, And he lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine. (Above, 35:22.) [The word “concubine” is used to indicate] that if she were a mistress it would not have occurred. It is possible that during the lifetime of Rachel and Leah, Scripture calls them “handmaids” and “concubines,” but now that they had died [Jacob] took them as wives.

אלה תולדות יעקב, intelligent people must remember that our sages taught us that in spite of all different methods of exegesis of the text of the written Torah, no verse may legitimately be explained in a manner which contradicts the plain meaning of the text. While it is true that the Torah, by means of allusions, grammatical anomalies, tone-signs, etc., teaches us far more than meets the eye when we look at the bald text, there are strict limitations even to these methods of exegesis such as the thirteen principles of Rabbi Yishmael and the 32 principles of Rabbi Yossi Haglili. Exegetes of former times, thanks to their piety, relied exclusively on the drashot i.e. allegorical and ethical interpretations of anomalies in the text of the Torah, thereby neglecting a thorough study of the text as it presents itself to the average, though not scholarly, reader. Seeing that our sages stated אל תרבו בניכם בהגיון, “do not burden your children overly with interpretation based on logic, on common sense,” and they also saidהעוסק במקרא מדה ואינו מדה, העוסק בתלמוד אין לך מדה גדולה מזו, “he who studies the written text of the Torah has accomplished something positive but has also failed to accomplish something positive, but on the other hand, he who has studied Talmud has chosen by far the best path in Torah study,” (freely translated), the result of such statements has been that students have not become used to studying the plain meaning of the text without immediately looking at exegesis. (Baba Metzia 33 and a source supposedly in Berachot 28, the correct text being מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון, prevent your children from indulging in speculative reason,” but this does not seem to have any connection with Torah exegesis in the context where the statement is made. Ed.] This principle has been illustrated in Shabbat 63; we read there in the name of Rav Kahane “I was already eighteen years old and had studied the entire Talmud, but had not ever been taught of the principle that אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, “that the text in the written Torah must not be interpreted in a manner which completely nullifies its plain meaning.” Also Rabbi Shlomoh, my mother’s father of blessed memory (Rashi) the brilliant exegete, who wrote commentaries on the entire Bible, was careful not to ignore the plain meaning of the text. I, Shmuel, son of Rabbi Meir, Rashi’s son-in-law, have argued with him, and he admitted to me that if he had the opportunity, he would compose an additional commentary in which he would concentrate on the plain meaning as it became clearer to him with each passing day. [I believe that the wording here means that Rashi meant that just as his published commentaries consisted mostly of anthologies, i.e. his quoting existing interpretations, so he would search out more commentaries based on the plain meaning to present to the reader when publishing another commentary. Ed.] I am now presenting to the reader what earlier exegetes had to say on our verse.

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

בן שבע עשרה שנה, this was necessary so that we realise that the separation of Joseph from his father –during which time Yaakov had considered his as dead- lasted for 22 years. The Torah testified in 41,26 that Joseph was 30 years old when presented to Pharaoh, after which time 7 good years and 2 years of famine occurred before Yaakov and family descended to settle in Egypt, making a total of 22 years of separation.

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, the sons of Leah, are referred to as his brothers, seeing that they were the sons of a major wife, as opposed to the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah who ranked lower on the social scale, though also half-brothers of Joseph. They are therefore referred to here only as the sons for their respective mothers.

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה, he spent most of his time in the company of those four children who were far closer to him in age. The fact that Joseph preferred the company of the sons of the servant-maids may have been the beginning of the sons of Leah resenting him.

את אחיו, he was tending the sheep with his brothers, but, seeing that he still enjoyed his carefree childhood he spent most of his time with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah, instead of in the company of the sons of Leah. As a 17 year old he should have acted like a נער, an adolescent lad approaching manhood. This is the meaning of the word נער in Hoseah 11,1 Samuel II 2,14. The Torah now enumerates a number of other causes which contributed to the brothers hating Joseph. [this was how Leah’s sons viewed his behaviour, not how Joseph explained it. Ed.]

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, the language is somewhat inverted and means the same as את דבתם של אחיו רעה, “reports of his brothers‘ wrongdoing.” This is in line with the interpretation of Bereshit Rabbah, as quoted by Rashi that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah treated the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah with disdain. He contrasted this with his own behaviour towards these half brothers of his, whom he professed to honour and spend extra time with them as proof of his considering them equal. Other commentators have not related to the principal meaning of our verse. [the brothers would not have known about Joseph badmouthing them as Yaakov would not have told them. Hence they never reacted to this. Ed.]

אלה תלדות יעקב THESE ARE THE PROGENY OF JACOB — And these are an account of the generations of Jacob: these are their settlements and the events that happened to them until they formed a permanent settlement. The first cause is found in the narrative, “Joseph being seventeen years old, etc. etc.” — it was through this incident that it came about that they went down to Egypt. This is the real explanation of the text and in it each statement finds its proper setting. The Midrash, however, explains that by the words, “These are the progeny of Jacob — Joseph”, Scripture regards all Jacob’s sons as secondary to Joseph for several reasons: first, the whole purpose of Jacob in working for Laban was only for Rachel, Joseph’s mother, (and all his children were born only in consequence of this); then, again, Joseph’s facial features bore a striking resemblance to those of Jacob. Further, whatever happened to Jacob happened to Joseph: the one was hated, the other was hated; in the case of the one his brother wished to kill him so, too, in the case of the other, his brethren wished to kill him. Many such similarities are pointed out in (Genesis Rabbah 84:5-6; Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another comment on this verse is: וישב AND HE ABODE — Jacob wished to live at ease, but this trouble in connection with Joseph suddenly came upon him. When the righteous wish to live at ease, the Holy one, blessed be He), says to them: “Are not the righteous satisfied with what is stored up for them in the world to come that they wish to live at ease in this world too! (Genesis Rabbah 84:3)

והוא נער AND HE, BEING A LAD — His actions were childish: he dressed his hair, he touched up his eyes so that he should appear good-looking (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

את בני בלהה WITH THE SONS OF BILHAH — meaning that he made it his custom to associate with the sons of Bilhah because his brothers slighted them as being sons of a hand-maid; therefore he fraternised with them.

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

דבתם THEIR REPORT — The word דבה always means in old French parleriz; English, gossip: whatever he could speak bad about them he told to his father.

דבה has the same meaning as the verb of the same root in (Song 7:10) “(דובב) making speak the lips of those that are asleep”.

אלה תולדות יעקב, what happened to him, as a result of his “settling,” i.e. “retiring” there. (matters which he had not planned). Things described in Proverbs 27,1 as ילדי יום, brought on by the passage of time. Ever since Yaakov had left his father’s home what happened to him had the appearance of something not planned by him, not the result of his design. It is similar to the history of the Jewish people during the era of the first Temple. At any rate, the words וישב יעקב, Yaakov setlled down, remind us of the Jewish people in the land of Israel until the first expulsion. The words בארץ מגורי אביו, in the land where his father had been a stranger, remind us of the era of second Temple. This was followed by the destruction of Jewish statehood, and the loss of even the status of a satellite power, and our entering a long period of exile which will terminate only with the final redemption.

היה רועה את אחיו בצאן, he was giving guidance to them and instructed them in the finer points of being successful shepherds.

והוא נער, if, in spite of this, he badmouthed his brothers, this was due to his being still an adolescent, not as mature as he should have been or as his intellect made him appear to be. He was not experienced enough to realise what the ultimate effect of his badmouthing his brothers would turn out to be. While it is true that as a relative youngster at 30 he became the mentor of the wisest men in Egypt, the foremost political power, at the tender age of 17 he still had a lot to learn. (compare his wisdom as expressed in Psalms 105,22 where aged people are described as wise, whereas in Shabbat 89 we are taught that mature wisdom cannot be expected to be found amongst the physically young.

ויבא יוסף את דבתם רעה, he told his father that his brothers, because of unintentional errors, i.e. lack of professional competence, caused him financial losses in his flocks, seeing that at the time they were preoccupied primarily with increasing their material wealth.

This is the history of the children of Yaakov... This comment of Rashi relates to what he said before, that our verse is explaining the settlements of Yaakov and his descendants. Here, Rashi is answering the question: Where does Scripture explain the settlements of Yaakov’s descendants? It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף בן שבע עשרה שנה..., [seemingly a different topic]! Thus Rashi explains that אלה תולדות... is about the chain of events leading to the eventual settlement of Yaakov’s descendants, who are the Tribes: Yoseif was seventeen, etc, and because of Yoseif they came to Egypt, after which they left and came to Eretz Yisrael. [Question:] אלה תולדות יצחק... (25:19) is similar, in that it begins with אלה תולדות and then tells the events before their births. Why did Rashi not ask the same question there? The answer is: Rashi’s question here is mainly because it begins with the settlements of Yaakov and then Scripture writes אלה תולדות יעקב, but the order should have been reversed!

Meaning that he associated with the sons of Bilhah... “With the sons of Bilhah” cannot be [a continuation of] the same point, that he did childish things with the sons of Bilhah. Would he not act the same way when he was not with them? Perforce, [it means, and in addition, he associated with them]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Any wrong that he would see in his brothers, the sons of Leah. Rashi deduces this because it is not written ויוצא יוסף דבתם, as it is written about the Spies (Bamidbar 13:32), ויוציאו דבת הארץ. Perforce, the reason it is written here ויבא יוסף את דבתם is because Yoseif said what was true. I.e., he reported the events to his father according to how he saw and heard them, and he did not say things he did not see. However, with regard to the Spies it is written ויוציאו, “they brought out,” meaning they brought out [i.e., fabricated] falsehoods from within themselves.

In his brothers, the sons of Leah. [Question:] In the verse it is written just, “With his brothers.” [How does Rashi know it means the sons of Leah?] The answer is: Yoseif was close with the sons of the handmaidens. If he considered them evil, how could he be close with them? Furthermore, since he was their friend, the evil that he reported surely was not about them.

And that they are suspect in illicit relationships ... Question: How could the sons of Yaakov have been suspect of doing these things? And if they were suspect, why then was Yoseif punished on account of this? The answer is: They surely were not suspect of doing these things; Yoseif erred. And he was punished because he should have looked further into the matter before suspecting them. He thought they ate limbs of living animals because they ate from a properly slaughtered animal that was still convulsing. But the meat was permitted since it was after shechitah. Or, he saw them eating a ben pekoa [an animal found alive in the womb of its mother that had been properly slaughtered]. It is permitted [to eat it,] due to the shechitah of its mother. And even if it [develops into] a big bull it does not require to be ritually slaughtered. [It only needs to be slaughtered] because it appears to be forbidden. Yoseif however, considered it as being the limb of a living animal because it nonetheless requires to be ritually slaughtered, due to appearance. They demeaned the sons of the handmaidens by calling the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah “sons of handmaidens.” Although this was true, and even Scripture refers to them so, Yoseif thought it implied that their sons were non-Jewish slaves. But he erred, because their sons were not non-Jewish slaves, for Bilhah and Zilpah were freed women who assisted Rochel and Leah. Regarding illicit relationships: a man may not use another man’s wife to serve him (Kiddushin 70a), and Yoseif saw them using the services or doing business with a married woman, so he suspected them. But he erred, because a man is forbidden to use the services of a married for intimate purpose only, such as washing his face, hands and feet, or making his bed. But, non-intimate matters or doing business with her are permitted. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yoseif suspected them of all three things? The answer is: Rashi himself answers this by saying, “Yoseif was, in, turn, smitten by these three...” Another answer: There is a connection between דבתם רעה written here, and v. 33 חיה רעה אכלתהו (“A wild beast devoured him”). Just like there it involved a limb from a living creature, since a wild beast devours its prey alive, so too here it involved a limb from a living creature. [The matter regarding non-Jewish] slaves is derived from what it is written about a handmaiden in Shemos 21:8: אם רעה בעיני אדוניה. Just like רעה there involves slavery, so too here it involves slavery. [The matter regarding] illicit relationships is derived from what it is written in 39:9 regarding Yoseif: ואיך אעשה הרעה הגדולה הזאת (“How can I do such a great evil”). Just like רעה there refers to illicit relationships, so too here it refers to illicit relationships.

“They slaughtered a goat” when he was sold, and they did not eat it while it was alive. I.e., the Torah had no need to write that they slaughtered it, since they did not eat it. Perforce, it comes to tell us that even though they did not intend to eat it, they nonetheless slaughtered it [because they were meticulous about shechitah].

These are their settlements, and occurrences... Re’m explains that Rashi adds, “And occurrences,” because the Torah recounts the actual settlements of only two and a half tribes among Yaakov’s descendants.

The Midrash however explains: Scripture identifies Yaakov’s children as Yoseif... Rashi is saying that [according to the Midrash,] the Torah is indeed explaining the descendants of Yaakov, not their settlements. It is written אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף to convey that all Yaakov’s descendants are called after Yoseif. This is because Yaakov worked the first seven years due to his love for Rochel, to beget a son from her. But then Lavan deceived him and gave him Leah, from whom he begat sons. When Rochel saw that she had no sons, she gave him her maidservant Bilhah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. Then Leah gave him her maidservant Zilpah as a wife, from whom he begat more sons. And then Rochel gave birth to Yoseif. As soon as Yoseif was born, Yaakov told Lavan that he wished to return to the place of his fathers. Thus we see that all Yaakov’s descendants were due to Yoseif who was born from Rochel.

Yaakov’s entire purpose in working for Lavan was only for the sake of Rochel. You might ask: Binyomin also came from Rochel, so why is [only] Yoseif mentioned? The answer is as I explained before: Yaakov worked mainly for Yoseif, as it says (30:25), “When Rochel had given birth to Yoseif, Yaakov said to Lavan, ‘Send me on my way...’”

Yoseif’s זיו איקונין resembled his. Why did Rashi not use the term קלסתר פנים, as he did on 25:19, regarding Yitzchok [who resembled Avraham? The answer is:] Rashi learns Yoseif’s resemblance to Yaakov from the word זְקֻנִים, as Rashi explains on 37:3. And זְקֻנִים is an abbreviation for זיו אקונין.

Also, everything that happened to Yaakov happened to Yoseif... [According to the above Midrash,] the verse is saying, so to speak: “These descendants” about which everyone can testify that they are “of Yaakov,” they are [none other than] “Yoseif,” [for only Yoseif’s facial features resembled Yaakov’s.] This is similar to Rashi’s explanation on (25:19) ואלה תולדות יצחק בן אברהם, [where everyone testified that Yitzchok looked like Avraham]. Alternatively, the reason why everyone knew Yoseif was Yaakov’s son was that the events which happened to Yaakov happened only to Yoseif, [and a son’s fate generally resembles that of his father].

Another Midrashic exposition: “[Yaakov] settled.” Yaakov was seeking to be settled in tranquility... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written ויחי יעקב בארץ..., [rather than וישב יעקב בארץ...]?

The righteous seek to be settled in tranquility, God says... In all places where Rashi explains that [ישב implies there was a lacking,] it is because it is written lacking [the vav of יושב]. Such as והוא ישב פתח האהל (18:1), and ולוט ישב (19:1). But here there is no reason to interpret it as, “Seek to be settled in tranquility,” [since וַיֵשֶב is not a lacking form of יוֹשֵב]. Thus, it should literally mean “settled.” [If so, why does Rashi interpret as he does?] The answer is: [This interpretation is needed] because it is written afterwards, אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף, which has no connection with וישב יעקב. Alternatively, because it should have said אלה תולדות יעקב ראובן.... This forced Rashi to explain that אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף is the cause which prevented the fulfillment of Yaakov’s intention [to be settled in tranquility]. And קפץ עליו רגזו means the controversy and fighting [surrounding Yoseif]. The meaning of רגזו is similar to אל תרגזו בדרך (45:24), which Onkelos translates as אל תתנצון (do not quarrel). (Nachalas Yaakov)

He did things that were childish... Otherwise, why does it say, “And the lad”?

This is the legacy of Jacob. Although Jacob remained active upon his return to Canaan, his contributions as a leader and builder started to decrease. Therefore the narrative shifts its primary focus to Joseph. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock of his household with his brothers, thereby continuing the traditional occupation of their family (see 46:32). And he was a lad, or assistant, with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives. Jacob himself gave no indication that the sons of the maidservants, Bilha and Zilpa, were of lesser status than the sons of Leah and Rachel. On the contrary, when Jacob blessed his sons, he equated the status of all of them (see 49:16). In practice, however, a disparity existed between them. Joseph became close to the sons of Bilha and Zilpa because he was closer in age to them. Yet Joseph brought evil report of them to their father, slandering their inappropriate behavior. 1

אלה תולדות יעקב, “These are the developments of Yaakov;” Rashi interprets these words as introducing the background to the many places Yaakov’s descendants lived and emigrated to, before they finally settled in the Land of Israel, previously the land of Canaan. The first cause for these wanderings is to be found in the story of Joseph and his brothers. Ibn Ezra’s commentary follows the same general approach as that of Rashi. Nachmanides claims that the expression תולדות cannot be applied to successive residences of a person or a people, but only to days, years, etc., i.e. generations, births, etc. A well known example is Proverbs 27,1 מה ילד יום, “what the day will bring” (give birth to). I believe that the correct interpretation of our verse is: “these are developments of Yaakov, Joseph and his brothers and what has been happening to them.” Possibly, just as the Torah listed the developments of Esau down to the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people, it lists what had happened to the descendants of Yaakov and all his descendants until they moved to Egypt, 70 in number.

והוא נער את בני בלהה. “and he was a lad keeping company with the sons of Bilhah.” Rashi interprets this as Joseph’s immaturity, acting childishly. Onkelos interprets this to mean that already from his earliest youth, Joseph preferred the company of the sons of Bilhah who looked up to him and flattered him. Nachmanides writes that the words והוא נער, refer to what has been written previously, so that we have to understand the sequence of the verse as follows: “these are the developments in the house of Yaakov; Joseph, who was a lad of 17 years used to tend the sheep together with his brothers.” Ibn Ezra interprets the verse to mean that because Joseph was still immature at 17, the sons of Bilhah made him their personal valet. The Torah suggests that if Joseph had acted as valet to the sons of Yaakov’s real wives no problems would have arisen at all. This is the meaning of the דבתם רע, the evil reports Joseph brought to his father concerning the conduct of the sons of Leah. Joseph resented being assigned to being a valet to the sons of the handmaids. It is also possible that due to his youth, the Torah refers to him as נער, even though physically speaking he was fully grown. We encounter something similar with Avshalom, son of David, who was also referred to as נער, not because he was so young in years at that time, but because he was younger than his brothers. (Samuel II 19,33)

את בני בלהה, “the sons of Bilhah, etc.” According to Rashi Joseph befriended them because the sons of Leah shunned them.

נשי אביו, “his father’s wives.” The Torah emphasizes that these ladies were Yaakov’s legal wives in the fullest meaning of the term. They were described as maidservants only in their status compared to Rachel and Leah, seeing that the latter were their seniors. This is why when Yaakov presented his wives to his brother Esau, and he first presented Zilpah and Bilhah, these are described as שפחות, maidservants, (33,6) seeing that in the event Esau would molest them, this would be a warning for Leah and Rachel to hide, or something. After all, Zilpah and Bilhah continued as maidservants in the employ of Leah and Rahel also after Yaakov married them. When Reuven was described as “sleeping” with Bilhah, she is also described as פלגש, a concubine, but this is only vis-à-vis her deceased mistress Rachel. It is quite possible that while Rachel and Leah were alive, Yaakov referred to them both as שפחות and as פילגשים, “maidservants and concubines.”

את דבתם רעה, ”evil reports about them.” Anything wrong that the sons of Leah did, Joseph reported to his father. Nachmanides queries that if that were indeed so, the sons of the maidservants should have loved him, and if so, why did they not save him at the time when the sons of Leah were about to kill him and eventually sold him? After all, there were four of them, and if you add Reuven who, as we know, tried to save Joseph, they would have been equal in number to the other five sons of Leah? Furthermore, from the text it appears as if all the brothers, including the sons of the maidservants agreed to sell him! According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah, Joseph reported evil deeds both of the sons of Leah and the sons of the maidservants. Accordingly, the meaning of the words את בני בלהה ואת את בני זלפה, is simply that Joseph spent most of his time in the company of these sons of the maidservants as they were so much closer to him in age. In fact, their father had commanded these sons of the maidservants to keep a constant eye on Joseph, to insure that no mishap would befall hum. They were to attend to his needs. He did not instruct the sons of Leah to tend to Joseph’s needs. Joseph brought tales of misconduct of the sons of the maidservants to his father, seeing that he had so much opportunity to observe their conduct. This is why they learned to hate him.. We hear only later, that as a result of his dreams and his telling the sons of Leah about them, the sons of Leah grew to be jealous of him and to hate him, especially when they could not help noticing how his father preferred him over them. Everyone of the brothers had his own reason for hating Joseph.

דבתם רעה, “reports of their wrong doing.” According to Nachmanides the word דבה always implies something exaggerated. It is therefore evil by definition. Rashi explains that Joseph told his father that the sons of Leah were belittling the sons of the maidservants, that they were suspect of eating flesh from animals not yet slaughtered or dead, and that they indulged in incestuous sexual relationships. It is difficult to understand that if Joseph’s accusations were true, why he himself in the course of his life, was exposed to precisely these three potential sins. On the other hand, if Joseph’s accusations were unjustified, how could a person who is regarded throughout our history as an outstandingly righteous individual, a model of uprightness, have been guilty of defaming his brothers in such a manner? The answer usually given to this question is that even if his accusations had been true, he was wrong to act as a sole witness whose evidence was not supported by a second disinterested witness. The whole matter is reminiscent of a story in the Talmud Makkot 11A, where someone called Tuviah, had become guilty of a sin, and a single witness named Zigud testified against him and was punished for slandering him by unsupported testimony, whereas the alleged sinner went free.

“This is the line of Jacob” [37:2]. This is the history of the children of Jacob. The first thing happened. Joseph was seventeen years old and he was raised with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah. He herded the sheep with their children. Therefore, the verse says, youth [na’ar]. That is, it was no shame that he herded with the children of the maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, because he was still a youth, that is to say, young. So writes Hizkuni. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.) Rashi writes. He did childish deeds. He adorned himself and beautified his hair. Also, he still lived with the children of Bilhah and Zilpah. The other children separated themselves from them and held them in low esteem. However, the righteous Joseph joined these children. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2.)

“Joseph brought bad reports of them” [37:2]. Joseph told his father everything that he saw the children of Leah doing. Rashi asks a question here. Why does it say here “Joseph brought”? This means, he brought reports to his father. Concerning the spies it is written, “They spread calumnies” [Numbers, 13:32]. This means, they drew out. The explanation is that Joseph was righteous. He told no lies about his brothers, but everything that he saw with his own eyes explicitly he told and brought to his father. However, the spies were evildoers. They embellished evil words; they even said falsehoods about the land of Israel. (Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:2.) What evil did Joseph see among his brothers? They were completely righteous. The explanation is that Joseph made a mistake. He saw them eating a calf whose mother had been slaughtered and the calf came out alive. One is allowed to eat the calf without slaughtering it. This what the brothers were eating, and Joseph told his father how they were eating it without having slaughtered it. Joseph also told his father how the children of Leah said to the children of Bilhah and Zilpah: you are children of maidservants, that is to say, of low esteem. Joseph said: one should not call anyone the son of a slave or the like. One should not call anyone the son of a maidservant. Joseph thought that it was a sin to call someone son of a slave or son of a maidservant. However, the brothers said that nonetheless they are sons of maidservants and one is allowed to call them sons of maidservants because in truth they are children of maidservants. Joseph also said about the children of Leah that they engaged in illicit sexual relations, since he saw that the children of Leah engaged in much commerce with the wives of the Cutheans. Joseph thought that they were certainly engaging in illicit sexual relations. However, Joseph was mistaken. One is allowed to talk much with women in order to engage in commerce with them. The Holy One punished Joseph with three things. The first thing that Joseph had said that they were eating animals without slaughter. Therefore, when they sold him, his brothers first slaughtered a kid in order to dip Joseph’s shirt in blood. The second was that Joseph said that the brothers called the children of Bilhah and Zilpah, slaves and servants. Therefore, Joseph was sold as a slave. The third thing that Joseph said was that the brothers engaged in illicit sexual relations. Therefore, Joseph was punished that his mistress wanted to sleep with him and he later was thrown into prison. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2.)

And the descent of Israel into Egypt, too, stemmed initially from this [i.e., from lashon hara], viz. (Bereshith 37:2): "And Joseph brought evil report of them [the sons of Leah] to their father," whence it was decreed by Heaven, measure for measure, that he be sold into slavery, his having accused them of calling their brothers [from the maidservants] "slaves" (viz. Bereshith Rabbah 84:7 and Yerushalmi Peah 1:1). Though Joseph had a heter [halachic license] for bringing this "evil report," as the exegetes explain, it is to be noted that this heter did not avail him [and he was sold into slavery].

Joseph is selected here as the stereotype of a Jew. Jacob's typical issue is described as "these are the generations of Jacob, Joseph..." (Genesis 37,2). Many other verses throughout the Bible express the same theme. Tanchuma at the end of Parshat Vayigash writes that whatever befell Joseph sooner or later befell Zion etc. Just as Joseph was tending the sheep near his brothers at the beginning of his historic career, so the Jewish people were close to the land of Edom their cousins at the beginning of its historic career when they received the Torah. By its acceptance of G-d’s law, Israel, so to speak, brought "evil" reports about other nations who had failed to accept the Torah when it was offered to them. When G-d says in Jeremiah 2,2, "I remember your love and kindness in your youth when you followed Me into the desert etc," this corresponds to Joseph being loved by his father more than his brothers. G-d gave Israel the Torah, accorded it special status, just as Jacob chose Joseph, gave him the colored coat and assigned him priestly duties (as Rachel's eldest). When the cousins (gentile nations) perceived this, they hated Israel just as the brothers had hated Joseph. Our sages point out that the reason the mountain on which the Torah was given was called Sinai, was because the word is reminiscent of hatred, i.e. events on that mountain accounted for the hatred of the Jewish people and Judaism by the gentile nations. Joseph's dreaming of the homage paid him reflects the homage paid the Jewish people during the early generations of their conquest of the land of Canaan, when most nations acknowledged Jewish achievements from afar in their respective countries. A time came when the nations became resentful of Israel's pre-eminence, and just as in Joseph's dream they challenged, "Do you want to rule over us or reign amongst us?" Joseph had dreamed of the more influential celestial bodies, since he foresaw Ishmael's and Esau's opposition, one of whom uses the lunar calendar whereas the other uses the solar system as basis for its calendar plus all the other eleven constellations excluding the constellation of Israel which does not revolve around the other constellations. The future will reveal that all these rival nations and destinies will submit to Joseph (Israel), resulting in shame and derision for sun and moon respectively, as we read in Isaiah 24,23, "And the moon will be ashamed, while the sun will feel disgrace."

In the Middle Ages, under the influence of rationalism and the polemic with Christian biblical interpretation, a sharp distinction was made between derash, the midrashic meaning and peshat, the literal, grammatical or historical sense. For the first time commentators such as Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam) and Rabbi Joseph Kara attached independent dignity to peshat, the “plain sense of things.” However, even for such commentators midrash retained its primacy as authoritative reading. Thus Rashbam, in a passage explaining his methods, writes that “the main point of the Torah” is to teach the laws and ethical principles derived by midrash. He confesses that his own concern, which is to seek “the deep plain sense of Scripture,” is of secondary significance. (Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, Commentary to Genesis 37:2; see also his comments to Genesis 1:1.) Or as we might put it, if Torah yields a multiplicity of meanings, the plain sense is certainly one of them, (See the interesting, if speculative, comments of David Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 105–15.) but what is normative for the life of the community is the midrashic tradition. What is more, a clear polarity between derash and peshat is unknown to the early sages. In a masterly essay, Raphael Loewe has shown that though the term peshat was used by the rabbis of the talmudic age, it referred not to the “literal” but rather to the recognised, accepted or authoritative meaning. (Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1964), volume 1, 141–85.)

“A youth” -- (Gen. 37:2) “and he was a youth” -- Four individuals were given the appellation ’ youth’: Yosef, Joshua, Metatron, and David.

However according to what we have indeed written about the matter of change in the commandments, everything is resolved. As it is possible that the prohibition of two sisters was not yet a sin at all during the time of the patriarchs, but was rather innovated afterward when the divine wisdom saw that a great catastrophe can come from this, given the jealousy of the children of Leah towards Joseph, the son of Rachel, the sister of their mother. Also [due to] the jealousy Leah and Rachel towards each other. As given that Leah and Rachel were Jacob's main wives, [their children] were jealous towards each other, which was not the case with the children of the maidservants. And that is why it is stated about Joseph: and the lad was with the sons of Bilhah, and the sons of Zilpah (Genesis 37:2). Behold it was from the angle of Leah and Rachel being sisters, and the jealousy of their children towards each other, that our ancestors went down to Egypt. And that is why [marrying] two sisters was subsequently forbidden. That is the reason for the need for the content of these stories: To make us aware of the reason for one of the commandments. And the Guide [for the Perplexed], Part III, Section 50 wrote something similar to this about the story of These are the kings, etc.. And it is possible that just like the law of sisters was changed, so too was marrying an aunt changed. And that is why Amram was permitted to marry his aunt. And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded similarly to this concerning the prohibition of a sister, as it is stated about it:it is kindness (Leviticus 20:17). And our rabbis, may their memory be blessed, expounded (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 9:1), "What I permitted to Cain and Abel, etc." And that is why these sexual prohibitions were not yet forbidden during the time of the patriarchs until the time of the giving of the Torah when this law was innovated. And Ramban himself, may his memory be blessed, wrote like this concerning pillars, and these are his [words]: And the [prohibition of setting up a] pillar is a commandment that was innovated at a certain time, as they expounded (Sifrei, Deuteronomy 146) about that which is stated: in that the Lord, your God, hated it (Deuteronomy 16:22) — "He hated it, after it was beloved in the time of the forefathers." To here are his [words]. And since it is [the case] here, it is also [the case] there. For one should learn from what is revealed about what is hidden.

This quality is sometimes called (Genesis 49:24) “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב.” The reason is because it is from Understanding-Binah that the hawk of wisdom-Chochmah grows pinions-Ya’aver Neitz-יאב״ר נץ. (See Job 39:26; The word Mighty-Abeer-אביר shares the same letters as Ya’aver-יאבר.) This is the matter of the lower Shabbat and the upper Shabbat. (As explained before, the lower Shabbat is the quality of Foundation-Yesod, whereas the upper Shabbat is the quality of understanding-Binah.) The reason it is called “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב” and not “The Mighty One of Avraham” or “The Mighty One of Yitzchak” is because this quality depends on the quality of Yaakov, (This is as indicated by the verse (Genesis 37:2), “These are the progeny of Yaakov, Yosef.” That is, Yosef, who is the quality of foundation-Yesod, is the progeny of Yaakov, who is the quality of beauty-Tiferet.) for Yaakov is the middle line who mediates and corresponds to the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו״ה, blessed is He. Now, the matter of the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו"ה is unique to Yaakov, and is the matter of the quality of splendor-Tiferet. (The quality of beauty-Tiferet is between kindness-Gedulah, which is the quality of Avraham, and might-Gevurah, which is the quality of Yitzchak.) The qualities of Avraham and Yitzchak take hold of this quality, Avraham to its right, Yitzchak to its left, with Yaakov in the middle line. The sign by which to remember this is the verse, (Genesis 25:27) “Yaakov was a perfect-Tam-תם man, dwelling in tents-Ohalim-אהלים.” The matter of a “perfect-Tam-תם man” is the same as the matter of the “Twin leaf-Tiyomet-תיומת of the Lulav,” (See Talmud Bavli, Sukkah 32a and elsewhere.) which is the middle spine of the Lulav. The words, “dwelling in tents-Ohalim-אהלים” [in the plural] refers to the tent of Avraham and the tent of Yitzchak, which are the two sides of the Lulav. Thus, since the matter of Yaakov is that he is the middle line and is the matter of the letter Vav-ו of the Name HaShem-יהו״ה, we therefore say, “The God of Avraham, the God of Yitzchak, and the God of Yaakov-V’Elohei Yaakov-ואלה״י יעקב,” (In the Amidah prayer. Also see Exodus 3:6) with the addition of the letter Vav-ו in reference to Yaakov. The same is so of the words, (In the Amidah prayer. Also see Deuteronomy 10:17) “The Great-HaGadol-הגדול, the Mighty-HaGibor-הגבור, and the Awesome-V’HaNora-והנורא God.” The great matter is the verse, (Leviticus 26:42) “I will remember My covenant with Yaakov-יעקוב,” in which the word Yaakov-יעקוב is spelled with the Vav-ו, and the “covenant of Yaakov-Brit Yaakov-ברית יעקב” is the same as the matter of “The Mighty One of Yaakov-Abeer Yaakov-אביר יעקב.”

Jacob took over the house through Joseph, as it is written: "These are the generations of Jacob Joseph" (Beresheet 37:2). Moses did not mate with her until he attained (the connection with) Joseph. When the Shechinah returned from the exile (Moshe) was able to unite with (the Shechinah) only through Joseph, as it is written: "And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him" (Shemot 13:19). Why is it written: "with him?" Because the body is not (fit) for mating with the female unless it unites with the covenant (i.e. Yesod). This is why Moses took Joseph with him. Because, since (Yosef) was (connected) with him, (Ze'er Anpin) could mate with this Female principle in the proper manner. Thus, Jacob, Moses and Joseph go together as one.

Chapter (58) 59: Prophets [1] The vision of Obadiah. "Thus says the Lord God concerning Edom (Jeremiah 49:7): We have heard a report from the Lord, and a messenger has been sent among the nations: 'Rise up! Let us rise against her for battle!'" (Jeremiah 49:14). When Jacob, our father, saw the leaders of Esau, he became afraid and began to say, "Who can stand up against all of them, so many kings and leaders, and I am but one person? How can I stand up against all of them?" Then the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Do not be afraid. Look at what is behind you." "These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph" (Genesis 37:2). "Who can stand up against all of them?" "The smallest one among your children." "And the House of Jacob shall be fire and the House of Joseph a flame" (Obadiah 1:18). It is compared to a goldsmith who was sitting and doing his work, and his disciple was with him. The disciple raised his eyes and saw many camels loaded with straw. He began to wonder and said to his teacher, "Who can stand up against all of them?" His teacher replied, "One spark from the furnace can burn them all." So the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Jacob, "Are you afraid of them? One spark from you can burn them all," as it is stated, "Behold, they shall be as stubble, the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame" (Isaiah 47:14). This refers to Joseph, as it is stated, "And the House of Joseph shall be a flame" (Obadiah 1:18). Therefore, "and he (Jacob) descended" (Genesis 36:1), the descent (interpreted as) the worst (possible scenario) that Jacob loses them all, and the descent of your children is combined against Esau. Even Obadiah, the lowest of all the prophets, takes revenge against Edom, as it is stated, "The vision of Obadiah. "Why has Yaakov descended?" (Obadiah 1:18)

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:49). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]….” – this is the offering that he presented in the name of Jacob, who had him precede Manasseh, and in the name of Joseph, who, because of his love, Jacob blessed him all those blessings, just as it says: “He blessed Joseph and said: The God [before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked…]” (Genesis 48:15), and it says: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh…” (Genesis 48:20). “Dish [kaarat]” – this is Jacob; do not read it as kaarat, but rather, as akeret, who uprooted [akar] the right hand from Manasseh in favor of Ephraim. “Silver” – after, “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20); what he said to Joseph: “His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too shall become a people…” (Genesis 48:19). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – corresponding to the one hundred and thirty words that there are from “he laid it on Ephraim’s head” (Genesis 48:14) until “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – this is Joseph, who was cast away [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “One” – as he was king in Egypt, just as it says: “One of the people (Avimelekh said this referring to himself.) almost lay [with your wife]” (Genesis 26:10). Likewise it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land…” (Genesis 42:6). “Silver” – after “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver,” as due to his wisdom he was privileged to achieve kingship, just as it says: “After God has disclosed all this to you.… You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:39–40). “Seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” – as Gabriel came and added one letter from the name of the Holy One blessed be He to his name and taught him seventy languages, as it is stated: “He established it as a precept for Joseph [bihosef] (He added a heh, changing Joseph [Yosef] to Yehosef.) when he went out over Egypt; I learned a language I had not known” (Psalms 81:6), as were it not so, the Egyptians would not have accepted Joseph to rule over them. “Both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” – Jacob and Joseph were both full-fledged righteous men, and the two of them resembled one another. This accords with what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). It should have said nothing other than: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Reuben.” Why is it stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”? It is to teach you that Joseph resembled his father in every respect. Just as Jacob was born circumcised, so too, Joseph was born circumcised. Just as this one, his mother was barren, so too, that one, his mother was barren. Just as this one, his mother suffered from the pain of her pregnancy, so too that one, his mother suffered during birth. Just as this one, his mother bore two, so too that one, his mother bore two. Just as this one, his brother seeks to kill him, this one, too, his brothers seek to kill him. This one, his brother hates [soneh] him, and that one, likewise. This one is a shepherd and that one is a shepherd. This one is hated [nistam] and that one is hated. (See Genesis 27:41, 49:23.) This one was stolen from twice: “Stolen in the day and stolen at night” (Genesis 31:39); that one, there is a double expression of stealing: “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti] [from the land of the Hebrews]” (Genesis 40:15). This one was blessed with ten blessings, (See Genesis 27:28–29.) and that one was blessed with ten blessings. (See Deuteronomy 33:13–17.) This one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel, and that one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel. This one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel, and that one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel. This one begot children outside of the Land of Israel, and that one begot children outside of the Land of Israel. This one, angels accompanied him, and that one, angels accompanied him. (A midrash says that when Joseph went to his brothers at the behest of his father, three angels accompanied him.) This one ascended to greatness by means of a dream (See Genesis 28:10–16.) and that one ascended to greatness by means of a dream. This one, his father-in-law’s household was blessed on his account, and that one, his father-in-law’s (According to Bereshit Rabba 86:3, Joseph’s father-in-law Potifera was Potifar.) household was blessed on his account. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine and that one ended the famine. (See Bereshit Rabba 89:9.) This one administered an oath to his son, and that one administered an oath to his brothers. This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one, his bones ascended, and that one, his bones ascended. Because Joseph resembled his father, that is why it is stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”; and that is why it is stated: “Both of them full…” – regarding Jacob and Joseph. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:50). “One…ladle [kaf]” – it corresponds to the palm of his right hand, which he placed on Ephraim’s head. Why does it call it “one”? It is because it is more significant than the left. “Gold…ten shekels” – it corresponds to the ten words that there are from: “Israel extended his right hand” (Genesis 48:14) until “and he was the younger” (Genesis 48:14). “Filled with incense” – Jacob saw this matter through the divine spirit, that Ephraim was worthy for him to place his right hand on his head. Likewise it says: “Guiding [sikel] his hands, as Manasseh was the first born” (Genesis 48:14). His hands were guided [hiskilu] by the divine spirit, just as it says: “Maskil of Eitan the Ezraḥite” (Psalms 89:1). (This is a psalm stated by Eitan the Ezraḥite with divine guidance.) “One young bull, one ram, one sheep in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:51). “One young [ben bakar] bull” – corresponding to Abraham, as it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [habakar]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” – corresponding to Isaac, in whose regard it is written: “[Abraham…] took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” – corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is written: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). Why did he sacrifice these three kinds of burnt offerings? It corresponds to the three patriarchs, corresponding to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “Let my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called upon them” (Genesis 48:16). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:52). “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elishama son of Amihud” (Numbers 7:53). “One goat as a sin offering” – corresponding to Joseph, as it is written: “They slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). Why did he sacrifice this corresponding to Joseph? It is because when Jacob blessed them with the name of the three patriarchs, likewise, he blessed them with the name of Joseph and made them dependent upon him, as it is stated: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the two blessings that he blessed them: the former, “[may the angel…] bless the lads” (Genesis 48:16), and the latter, “by you Israel shall bless….” “Five rams, [five goats, five lambs]” – three species, corresponding to three generations that Joseph saw for Ephraim, who were attributed to Joseph, and they were patrilineal houses, as it is stated: “Joseph saw great-grandchildren from Ephraim” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise it says: “These are the sons of Ephraim by their families: Of Shutelaḥ.… And these are the sons of Shutelaḥ: Of Eran…” (Numbers 26:35–36). Ephraim, Shutelaḥ, Eran, these are three sons from three generations. Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five words (In the Hebrew phrase.) of “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20), as it is from there that Ephraim merited to present his offering first. “This was the offering…” – because he presented the offering in this order, the Holy One blessed be He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Elishama….”

And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses on the day that God spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai (Numbers 3:1). Anyone with whom the Omnipresent engages to establish a nation or a family tree from him, the Omnipresent would also engage with him to write generations in his regard, as you find twelve instances of generations in the verses. The first: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4); “this is the book of the generations of Adam” (Genesis 5:1); “these are the generations of Noah” (Genesis 6:9); “these are the generations of the sons of Noah” (Genesis 10:1): “these are the generations of Shem” (Genesis 11:10); “these are the generations of Teraḥ” (Genesis 11:27); “these are the generations of Ishmael” (Genesis 25:12); “Isaac” (Genesis 25:19); “Esau” (Genesis 36:1); “Jacob” (Genesis 37:2). These are ten generations with which the Holy One blessed be He engaged to create the world and to establish nations. And there are two people that the Omnipresent wrote their generationst, one for the royal dynasty and one for the priestly dynasty: “These are the generations of Peretz” (Ruth 4:18), to establish the royal dynasty from him, and “these are the generations of Aaron and Moses"(Numbers 3:1), for the priestly dynasty.

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

What is written prior to this matter? “These are the kings [who reigned in the land of Edom before the reign of a king for the children of Israel]” (Genesis 36:31). And here it is written: “Jacob settled” – Rabbi Ḥunya said: This is analogous to one who was walking on the way and saw a pack of dogs. He was afraid of them and he sat in their midst. (Dogs pursue those who run, so he sat and did not run.) So, when our patriarch Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he feared them and settled in their midst. Rabbi Levi said: This is analogous to a blacksmith whose [forge] was open to a plaza, and his son, a goldsmith, opened opposite him. He saw many bundles of thorns being brought into the city. He said: ‘Where will all these bundles be stored?’ There was a certain clever man there. He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark will emerge from your [forge] and one spark from your son’s, and you will burn them.’ So, when Jacob saw Esau and his chieftains, he was afraid. The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Are you afraid of these? One spark from you and one spark from your son will burn all of them. That is what is written: “The house of Jacob will be fire, and the house of Joseph a flame” (Obadiah 1:18) – “Jacob settled.” “This is the legacy of Jacob. Joseph, seventeen years old, was herding the flock with his brothers, and he was a lad with the sons of Bilha, and with the sons of Zilpa, his father’s wives; Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). So said the Sages: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – all of these offspring [toladot] resulted only due to the merit of Joseph and because of him. Did Jacob not go to Laban only for Rachel? All these offspring were waiting until Joseph was born. (Jacob was afraid to return to his father in the land of Canaan, which would require him to confront Esau, until Joseph was born. ) That is what is written: “It was, when Rachel bore Joseph” (Genesis 30:25) – when the rival of that wicked one (Esau) was born, “Jacob said to Laban: Release me, and I will go” (Genesis 30:25). Who caused them to descend to Egypt? Joseph. Who supported them? Joseph. The sea was split only due to the merit of Joseph. That is what is written: “The waters saw You, God; the waters saw You and were frightened” (Psalms 77:17); “the depths sounded its voice” (Habakkuk 3:10); “with Your arm, You redeemed Your people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph” (Psalms 77:16). Rabbi Yudan ben Rabbi Shimon said: The Jordan, too, split only due to the merit of Joseph. Another matter: “Jacob settled” – so said the Sages: Jacob our patriarch did not enjoy settlement until he resided in his father’s residence. Which is that? It is the land of Canaan, as it was there that his father, Isaac, resided. Another matter: The numerical value of “residence [megurei]” is two hundred and fifty-nine (Mem – 40; gimmel – 3; vav – 6; resh – 200; yod – 10. Together they sum to 259.) – [corresponding to the years] from the day that the Holy One blessed be He said to Abraham: “Know [that your descendants shall be strangers in a land that is not theirs]” (Genesis 15:13) – until the time that Jacob our patriarch settled in the land of his father’s residence [megurei].

“Joseph, seventeen years old…” – and you say he was a lad? (The term lad, used here in connection with Joseph, generally indicates someone younger than seventeen.) It is because he would perform the actions of a lad – he would groom his eyes, lift his heels, and curl his hair. “Was herding…Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” – what did he say? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Meir says: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Shimon says: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: He was punished for all three of them. “Balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s” (Proverbs 16:11) – the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You said: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal; as you live, even at their time of corruption, they will slaughter and only then will they eat’ – “and slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). (After the sale of Joseph, they slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph’s tunic in its blood. The verse emphasizes that they first slaughtered the goat. ) ‘You said: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves’ – “Joseph was sold as a slave” (Psalms 105:17). ‘You said: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land; as you live, I will incite the bear against you’ – “His master’s wife cast her eyes [upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7).

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

“Joseph is a fruitful tree, a fruitful tree alongside a spring; branches run over the wall” (Genesis 49:22). “Joseph is a fruitful [porat] tree ” – a son who broke faith [shehefer] with his brothers; a son whose brothers broke faith with him; (Joseph brought his father evil reports about his brothers (Genesis 37:2); they later sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:28). ) a son who defied [shehefer] his master’s wife; a son whose master’s wife turned against [shehefera] him. Rabbi Avin said: The son who achieved greatness through cows [parot]. (Joseph rose to prominence after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, which featured cows.) Joseph is the son who achieved greatness through produce [perot]. “Joseph is a fruitful tree” – Joseph achieved greatness. Regarding them all it is written: “The maidservants approached…” (Genesis 33:6) (See Bereshit Rabba 90:4.) – this is what he said to him: I must repay you for that eye. (Jacob wanted to compensate Joseph for having obscured Rachel from Esau’s eye.) “Branches [banot] run [tzaada] over the wall…” – you find that when Joseph emerged to rule over Egypt, the daughters [banot] of kings would peer through the slits and would cast upon him bracelets, pendants, nose rings, and rings so he would lift his eyes and look at them. Nevertheless, he did not look at them. The Holy One blessed be He said: You did not lift your eyes and look at them; as you live, you will cause your daughters (The daughters of Tzelofḥad.) to have a foothold [tze’ida] in the Torah. What is a foothold? A Torah portion. (A passage regarding the laws of inheritance (Numbers 27:1–11) was stated as a response to the request of the daughters of Tzelofḥad. )

R. Chelbo questioned R. Samuel h. Nachmeni: "What is the reason that Jacob took away the privilege of the first-born from Reuben and gave it to Joseph?" You ask for the reason? Does not the Scripture state the reason When he defiled his father's bed? "What I ask, is this: Why did he give it to Joseph?" and he rejoined: "I will tell you a parable to which this case is similar: There was one who had raised an orphan in his house. At a later period the orphan became rich, and thought, I will recompense my benefactor." R. Chelbo said to him: "And how would it have been had Reuben not sinned? Then Jacob would have given nothing to Joseph?" R. Samuel b. Nachmeni replied: "Your teacher, R. Jonathan, did not explain it so, but as follows: The first-born was destined to come from Rachel, as it is written (Ib. 37) These are the generations of Jacob and Joseph. But Leah was preferred by virtue of her prayers. Nevertheless, because of Rachel's discretion, the Holy One, praised be He! returned it to her." And in what consisted Rachel's discretion? As it is written (Ib. 12) And Jacob told Rachel that he was her father's brother, and that he was Rebekah's son. The brother of her father? Was he not the son of her father's sister? It was thus: He asked her whether she would marry him. She said, "Yea, but my father is very shrewd, and you cannot persuade him." And to the question: "What does it mean?" She answered: "I have a sister who is older than me, and my father will not give me to you while she is not married." Then he said: "I am his brother in shrewdness." She then asked him: "Is it, then, allowed to the upright to be shrewd?" And he answered: "Yea, as (II Sam. 22, 27) With the pure thou wilt show thyself pure, and with the perverse thou wilt wage a contest." And then he furnished her with some signs, that when she should be brought to him he would ask her for these signs, and he might be sure that she was not exchanged for Leah. Thereafter, when Leah was about to be brought to him instead of Rachel, the latter said to herself: "Now my sister will he ashamed." She went and confided the signs to her. And this is what is written (Gen. 29, 25) And it came to pass that in the morning, behold, it was Leah. From which it is to be inferred that until the morning he did not know that she was Leah, because of the signs which Leah received from Rachel.

R. Berachia said: "There may be a dream which thought in part fulfilled, yet is impossible of being entirely fulfilled. We can derive it from Joseph, for it is written (Gen. 37, 9.) The sun and the moon and the eleven start. — Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother, and thy brothers (Ib. b). And at that time his mother was dead." R. Levi said: "A man should look forward to the realization of a good dream even for as long as twenty-two years; as it is written (Gen. 37, 2.) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old [when he had the dreams], and it is written also (Ib. 41, 46.) And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh. From seventeen to thirty are thirteen years, to which add the seven years of plenty and the two years of famine, will make the total of twenty-two years." R. Huna said: "To a good man bad dreams are shown, and to a bad man good dreams." We have also a Baraitha to the same effect: "During all the years of David he never dreamed a good dream, and during all the years of Achitophel he never dreamed a bad dream." R. Bizna b. Zabda, in the name of R. Akiba, who spoke in the name of R. Panda, who, in turn, spoke in the name of R. Nachum, who quoted R. Birim, said: "A venerable man by the name of R. Bana'ah had told him there were twenty-four places in Jerusalem for the interpretation of dreams; that once he had a dream and went to each one of these places; each one gave a different interpretation and each was fulfilled." This establishes what is written: "Every dream is in accord with its interpretation." Is this a passage? Yes, as R. Elazar said, for R. Elazar said: "Whence do we learn that every dream is realized according to its interpretation? It is written (Gen. 41, 13.) And just as he interpreted it, so it was."

(Fol. 36) GEMARA: How is the word (Josh. 8, 33) V'hachetzyo (and the other half of them) to be explained? Said R. Cahana: "This means that just as they were divided here at Mts. Gerizim and Ebal so were they also divided in the same manner upon the stones of the Ephod. An objection was raised from the following Baraitha: Two precious stones were fixed upon the shoulders of the High-priest, one stone on one shoulder and the other stone on the other shoulder. The names of the twelve tribes were inscribed, thereon, six on one stones and six on the other stone, as it is said (Ex. 28, 10) Six of the names on one stone and the remaining six names on the other stone, according to their birth. This means that the second stone was according to their birth, but the first stone was not according to their birth, because Juda preceded the others. Fifty letters were there altogether, of them twenty-five were on one stone and twenty-five on the other. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says (Ib. b) "They were placed upon the Ephod not in accordance with their division mentioned (Num. 1, 5), but they were placed in an Ephod in accordance with their division mentioned in (Ex. 1, 1-5). How so? The children of Leah were placed in accordance with their age. Then came the children of Rachel, one on one stone, and the other on the other stone. The children of the hand-maids were placed in the middle. As to the question how can the passage, According In their order of birth, be upheld? We must explain it that it was inscribed with the names as they were called by their father and not with the names they were called by Moses — Reuben but not Reubeni, Shimon but not Shimoni, Dan but not Dani, Gad but not 'Gadi.' Hence this will refute the above statement of R. Cahana, [because none of the above opinions is in accordance with the arrangements of the Ephod]. The refutation is indeed sustained. If so, then what is the meaning of V'hachezyo? We are taught in a Baraitha that the half that was placed opposite Mt. Gerizim was more than the half placed opposite Mt. Ebal, for, the Levites were below the hill. On the contrary, since the Levites were below the hill, hence the number of tribes facing Mt. Gerizim was less? We must therefore say; Although the tribe of Levi were below the hill, nevertheless the sons of Joseph were with thim, and completed the amount, as it is said (Josh. 17, 14) And the children of Joseph spoke unto Joshua, saying 'Why hast thou given me, but one lot ... ... ... and Joshua said unto them, if thou art a numerous people, then get up to the wood country, etc. He said to them, "Go and hide yourselves in the forest so that no covetous eye may afflict you." Whereupon they answered him, "We are the descendants of Joseph whom a covetous eye cannot afflict, as it is written (Gen. 29, 22) Joseph is a fruitful bough by a spring, and R. Abahu explains thus: "Do not read Aleh Ayin (by a spring), but read it Ole Ayin (above the covetous eye.'" R. Jose b. Chanina said: "From this it may be inferred that Joseph's children are not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye, (Ib., 48, 16) And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. This [the word grow used by Jacob which has the derivation of Dog (fish) is to mean that just as the fishes in the sea because of their being covered by water, no eye can afflict them, so also are the children of Joseph not subject to the affliction of a covetous eye." But how do you say above that there were fifty letters in the inscription of the Ephod. Behold there were only fifty letters less one? Said R. Isaac: "The fiftieth letter was used as an extra letter to the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ps. 81, 6) He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony, when he went out over the land of Egypt." R. Nachman b. Isaac raised an objection: "The passage says that it was in accordance with the names of birth, and this is not so." We must therefore say that the extra letter was inserted in the name of Benjamin, which is spelled in the entire Torah with only one Yud, but here in the Ephod, Benjamin, is spelled with two Yuds, as it is written (Ex. 25, 18) But his father called him Benjamin [with two Yuds]. R. Chama b. Bizna said, in the name of R. Simon the pious: "Joseph, who sanctified Heaven's name in secret was rewarded with only one additional letter of the name of the Holy One, praised be He, but Juda, who sanctified Heaven's name publicly was rewarded so that his entire name was equal to that of the Holy One, praised be He." What happened with Joseph? as written (Gen. 39, 11). And it came to pass on a certain day ... ... ... We are taught in a Baraitha, Joseph was destined to produce twelve tribes, just as they were by his father Jacob, as it is said (Gen. 37, 2) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph, however, they were produced through his brother, Benjamin. They were nevertheless called after the name of Joseph, as it is said (Ib. 46, 21) And the sons of Benjamin, Bela, Mecher, Ashbel, Gera, Na'aman, Achi, V'rosh, Muppim, Chuppim and Ard; i.e., Bela because Joseph was swallowed (lost) among the other nations; Mechcr, because he was the first born of his mother; Ashbel, because he was captured with the consent of God; Gera, because he lived in inns (having no settled home); Na'aman because he was very sweet Achi V'rosh, because he was my brother and leader; and Chuppim, because he did not see my wedding canopy nor did I see his; and Ard, according to some because he was driven among idolatrous nations, and according to others because his face was like a rose.

For the most part, classic Bible commentary from Rashi (eleventh century) to the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin, author of Ha’amek davar among other works.) (nineteenth century) assumes the task of interpreting the text, rather than offering a homiletical approach to it. (See, for example, Rashi’s programmatic statement in his commentary on Genesis 3:8 (“ vayishme’u…”) and the Rashbam’s on the necessity of explaining the plain sense of the text in his commentary on Genesis 37:2 (“eila...”) Also note the distinction the Ramban draws between the plain sense of the text and its mystical meaning in his commentary on Genesis 1:3 (“yehi ohr...”). We may assume that commentators who do not make programmatic statements of this sort also share the goal of explaining the plain sense of the text since they often argue the merits of their reading (or disagree with others’ readings) on the basis of the distinction between the plain sense of the text and a homily.) Even in instances when biblical commentary of this type spills over into homiletics, the homily is usually an aside, parenthetical to the overall agenda of the commentator.

(Deut. 25:18, cont.:) WHEN YOU WERE TIRED AND WEARY, AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD. TIRED from thirst AND WEARY from the road, AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD. (Above, Gen. 7:15; 8:5; 12:13; Tanh., Gen. 12:14; Deut. 6:10, cont.; PRK 3:13; PR 13:4; Gen. R. 73:7; cf. BB 123b.) R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahmani: It is a transmitted aggada Esau (i.e., Rome) will fall at the hand of the children of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin), as stated (in Jer. 49:20): SURELY THE YOUNGEST OF THE FLOCK SHALL DRAG THEM AWAY. Why does it call them THE YOUNGEST OF THE FLOCK? Because they were the youngest of the tribes, for YOUTH is written with reference to the one and LEAST is written with reference to the other (i.e., with reference to Esau). YOUTH is written with reference to the one (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE (Joseph) WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH . And LEAST is written with reference to the other (in Obad., vs. 2): I WILL SURELY MAKE YOU (Edom, i.e., Rome) LEAST AMONG THE NATIONS. The one (Esau) grew up with two who were righteous (i.e., with Isaac and Rebekah) and did not learn from their deeds, while the other grew up with two who were wicked (i.e., Potiphar and Pharaoh) and did not learn from their deeds. Therefore, the former will come and fall by the hand of the latter. The former, of whom it is written (in Deut. 25:18): AND HE DID NOT FEAR GOD, will come and fall by the hand of the latter, of whom it is written (in Gen. 42:18): I FEAR GOD.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. There were three natures within him. < He was > a Torah scholar, a prophet, and one who nourished his brothers. < He was > a Torah scholar, for it is so written (in Gen. 37:3): BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE (ZEN). (ZQN here is interpreted in the Talmud as an abbreviation (notarikon) for Zeh Sheqanah Hokhmah, which means, “This is the one who has acquired wisdom.” See Qid. 32b. See also Targum Onqelos, Gen. 37:3: BECAUSE HE WAS A WISE SON TO HIM.) It is also written (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER, AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; [YOUR ELDERS (rt.: ZQN), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU]. And where is it shown that he was prophet? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH…. It is also written (in Exod. 33:11): HIS ATTENDANT, JOSHUA BIN NUN, A YOUTH. Again it is written (in I Sam. 2:21): AND THE YOUTH SAMUEL GREW UP. (Since prophets like Joshua and Samuel are called youths, the designation must mean that Joseph also was a prophet.) And where is it shown that he fed his brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 50:21): SO NOW, FEAR NOT; I WILL NOURISH YOU….

(Gen. 37:1-2:) NOW JACOB DWELT < IN THE LAND >…. THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. What is written on the matter above (in Gen. 36:15)? THESE ARE THE LORDS OF THE CHILDREN OF ESAU. When Jacob saw them, he became alarmed and said: Who can stand against these? (Gen. R. 84:5; Tanh., Gen. 9:1.) To what is the matter comparable? To a goldsmith who would sit and ply his trade. His apprentice raised his eyes and saw a lot of camels who were loaded with straw. He began to say: Who can stand against these? His master said to him: If a spark went out of this furnace, it would burn all of them. So in the case of our father Jacob, when he saw all of Esau's lords, he began to be afraid and said: Who can stand against these? The Holy One said to him: Look at what is written below (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. By your life, someone shall spring from Joseph, < a person > who shall burn all of them, as stated (in Obad. 18): THE HOUSE OF JACOB SHALL BE A FIRE, AND THE HOUSE OF JOSEPH A FLAME, AND THE HOUSE OF ESAU SHALL BE STRAW; < THEY SHALL BURN IT >…. R.Hanina said: It is written (in Is. 47:14): SEE, THEY HAVE BECOME LIKE STRAW; FIRE CONSUMES THEM. It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. < The interpretation is > that Jacob's face was like Joseph's. (As Rashi informs us (ad loc.), the midrash needs to explain why Jacob’s generations are being ascribed to Joseph. Cf. Gen. R. 84:6, which argues that one should expect any discussion of Jacob’s children to begin with Reuben.) Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH [MORE THAN ALL HIS SONS BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. But look, Benjamin was younger than < Joseph >; yet it says: < Joseph was > THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. It is simply that he had features (Gk.: eikonion.) which resembled him. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH]. Just as Jacob raised up tribes; so did Joseph raise up tribes. It is so stated (in Gen. 48:5): EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH SHALL BE MINE LIKE REUBEN AND SIMEON. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

Another interpretation: Just as Jacob hid from his father for twenty-two years, so did Joseph hide from his father for twenty-two years. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. (So Rashi with considerable explanation on Gen. 37:34.) R. Levi said: Rabbi Johanan said: Wherever it says, HE WAS, the HE saw three worlds. (Cf. Gen. R. 30:8; Esth. R. 6:3.) It is written of Noah (in Gen. 6:9): HE WAS PERFECT. He saw the world when it was inhabited before the flood came, he saw it destroyed, and he saw it afterwards in its restoration. It is therefore said of him: HE WAS. In the case of Moses, it is written (in Exod. 3:1): HE WAS TENDING < THE FLOCK OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO, THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN >…. He saw Israel before the bondage tightened its grip, he saw the bondage, and {they} [he] saw them when they had been redeemed. [Of Mordecai it is written] (in Esth. 2:5): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A CERTAIN JEW IN THE CITADEL OF SHUSHAN. He saw them (Israel) before they were enslaved at the hand of Haman, he saw them under the edicts which had been decreed against them, and he saw them in their redemption. Of Job it is written (in Job 1:1): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A MAN IN THE LAND OF < UZ >, and he saw three worlds. He was whole, he suffered afflictions, and he was healed. So also in the case of Joseph, HE WAS is written of him (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH AT THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN WAS (literally: HE WAS) TENDING < THE FLOCK WITH HIS BROTHERS >….

All the things which happened to Jacob happened to Joseph. It is written in connection with Jacob (in Gen. 31:39): SNATCHED BY DAY. Also in the case of Joseph, it is written of him: FOR I WAS SURELY SNATCHED. Jacob had < his brother > Esau persecute him; and Joseph had his brothers persecute him. Jacob was enslaved to Laban, and Joseph was enslaved in Egypt. (Gen. R. 84:6 has a longer list of parallels.) It is therefore written (in Gen. 37:2) THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

(Gen. 37:2:) AND JOSEPH BROUGHT BAD REPORTS OF THEM < UNTO HIS FATHER >. What is the meaning of BAD REPORTS? That he had said something slanderous against his brothers. And what slanderous thing did he say against them? R. Judah said: He said against them that they would cut a limb from a living animal and eat it. (yPe’ah 1:1 (15d-16a); Gen. R. 84:7.) The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against the tribes. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then you shall invite them to eat with you, but they shall suspect you there in regard to the ritual slaughtering. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 43:32): THEY SERVED HIM BY HIMSELF, < AND THEM BY THEMSELVES >…. R. Me'ir says: He said to him: My brothers have set their eyes on Canaanite women. The Holy One said to him: You have said something slanderous against your brothers. Tomorrow, by your life, you are going down to Egypt. Then that woman (Potiphar's wife) shall say (in Gen. 39:17): THE HEBREW SLAVE < WHOM YOU BROUGHT TO US > CAME UNTO ME < TO FONDLE ME >. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): AND JOSEPH BROUGHT < BAD REPORTS OF THEM UNTO HIS FATHER >.

(Deut. 25:18, cont.:) And he cut off (rt.: znb) all who were lagging behind you. He smote them with a blow to the tail (rt.: znb). (The word can also denote the penis. See PR 7:3; 12:10, 13; 13:1.) And this agrees with what R. Hanina bar Shilqa, said, “What did the House of Amalek do to Israel? (Below, section 14.) They cut off their penes and flung them heavenward, as they said, ‘This is what You have chosen, take for Yourself what You have chosen.” As Israel did not know what the nature of spit was, until Amalek came and taught them, as stated (with reference to Ezek. 8:17), “here they were sending the spit in their faces.” From whom did he learn it? From his grandfather Esau, as stated (in Gen. 27:36), “And he said, ‘Is he not (hky) rightly named Jacob?’” (Gen. R. 67:4.) He rubbed (rt.: hkk) his throat and brought out the spit. (Deut. 25:18), “All who were lagging behind you.” R. Judah, R. Nehemiah, and the masters [differed]. R. Judah said, “They said, ‘If He is master over all of out deeds, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” R. Nehemiah said, “They said, ‘If He furnishes us with our food like a king who is living in the province, such that the province lacks nothing at all, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” And the masters said, “They said, “’If we have a thought in our hearts and He knows what we are thinking, we will serve Him; but if not, we will revolt against Him.’” R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi, “In their heart they had a thought, and the Holy One, blessed be He, granted them their request.” And what is the evidence? (Ps. 78:18:) “They tested God in their heart by asking food for themselves.” See what [else] is written there (in vs. 29), “So they ate and were very full.” Another interpretation (of Deut. 25:18), “all who were lagging behind you”: R. Judah, R. Nehemiah and the masters [differ]. (PRK 3:12; PR 12:13, cont.; PRE 44; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exod. 17:8 and Deut. 25:18.) R. Judah says, “Whoever was overcome was discarded.” R. Nehemiah says, “Whomever the cloud vomited up was discarded.” And the rabbis say, “It was the tribe of Dan that the cloud vomited up, [as] they all served idols, as stated (The reference is to the idol which the Danites took from Micah. See Jud. 17–18.) (Deut. 25:18, cont.), ‘when you were tired and weary, and did not fear God.’” [You were] tired from thirst and weary from the road, and you did not fear God. (Above, Gen. 7:15; 8:5; 12:13; Tanh., Gen. 12:14; Deut. 6:10, cont.; PRK 3:13; PR 13:4; Gen. R. 73:7; cf. BB 123b.) R. Pinhas said in the name of R. Samuel bar Nahman, “It is a transmitted aggada [that] Esau will fall at the hand of the children of Rachel (Joseph and Benjamin), as stated (in Jer. 49:20), ‘Surely the youngest of the flock shall drag them away.’ Why does it call them the youngest of the flock? Because they were the youngest of the tribes.” Hence, Moses said to Joshua (Exod. 17:9), “Choose men for us.” As he was [descended from] Joseph, about whom it is written (Gen. 42:18), “I fear God.” And about Esau, it is written (Deut. 25:18), “and did not fear God.” Youth is written with reference to the one and small is written with reference to the other (i.e., with reference to Esau). Youth is written with reference to the one (in Gen. 37:2), “since he (Joseph) was a youth with the children of Bilhah [and with the children of Zilpah].” And small is written with reference to the other (in Obad. 1:2), “I will surely make you (Edom) smallest among the nations.” The one (Esau) grew up with two who were righteous (i.e., with Isaac and Rebekah) and did not learn from their deeds, while the other grew up with two who were wicked (i.e., Potiphar and Pharaoh) and did not learn from their deeds. The one received the birthright as a result of his good deeds, while the other lost his birthright from his evil deeds. The one supported his brothers, while the other sought to kill his brother. The one fenced himself away from sexual immorality and from the spilling of blood, while the other sullied himself with sexual immorality and the spilling of blood. The one conceded to the revival of the dead, as stated (Gen. 50:24), “God will surely remember you”; while the other denied the revival of the dead, as stated (Gen. 25:32), “Behold, I am going to die.” The one offered his life for his mother’s honor, as stated (Gen. 33:7), “and after, Joseph and Rachel came forward and bowed”; while the other sought to kill his mother, as stated (Amos 1:11), “and he destroyed his uterus.” (This is a homiletical translation of the verse, which would otherwise be translated as, AND HE REPRESSED HIS PITY.) Therefore, the one (Esau) will fall by the hand of the other (Jospeh). And R. Johanan said, “All of the ministering angels sought to battle with the ministering angel of Esau, but he would not fall by their hand, as he would remove each and every one with a response: To Reuben, he says, ‘You were suspected about your father’s concubine.’ To Simeon and Levi, ‘You also killed [the inhabitants of] Shekhem.’ To the other tribes, ‘You sold your brother and sought to kill him.’ To Judah, ‘You were also suspected about your daughter-in-law, Tamar.’ To Benjamin he said, ‘You were suspected about the concubine in Giveah.’ When the ministering angel of [Joseph] came and battled with him, he immediately fell in front of him, as he had no response to answer him. This is what is written (Obad 1:18), “And the House of Jacob shall be fire, and the House of Joseph flame, and the House of Esau shall be straw.”

Our sages interpreted the verse Instead of thy fathers shall be thy sons (Ps. 45:17) to mean that everything that occurred to Jacob likewise happened to Joseph. Jacob was born circumcised, and so too was Joseph, as is said: These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph (Gen. 37:2). The former was called The son of my firstborn, Israel (Exod. 4:22), and the latter was spoken of as the firstborn was Joseph’s (I Chron. 5:2). The former was exiled to Haran, and the latter to Egypt. Jacob was exalted through a dream, as it is said: And He dreamed, and behold, a ladder set upon the earth (Gen. 38:22). Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream. R. Simeon the son of Gamliel said: Joseph was rewarded for his actions, for his mouth did not kiss in sin. Thus, according to thy mouth shall all my people be ruled (ibid. 41:40).

He was righteous (Gen. 6:9). This suggests that he was one of the seven men born circumcised. (Tradition differs as to the number of men born circumcised. Buber Tanhuma, Noah 6 mentions ten, Midrash on Psalms 9:7 lists thirteen.) Adam and his son Seth were born circumcised, as it is written: He begot a son in his own likeness after his image, and he called him Seth (Gen. 5:3). Noah was born circumcised, as it is written: He was righteous (lit. “perfect”) in his generations (ibid. 7:1); Jacob was born circumcised, for it is said: And Jacob was a quiet (lit. “perfect”) man (ibid. 25:27); Joseph was born circumcised, for it is written: These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2) because he resembled his father; Moses was born circumcised, as it is said: And she saw that he was a goodly child (Exod. 2:2); and Job was born circumcised, as it is written: A wholehearted (lit. “just”) and upright (“perfect”) man (Job 1:1).

And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses (Exod. 39:32). It is written elsewhere in reference to the verse: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them forever, and they are exalted (Job 36:7). What does this verse signify? That the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deny the righteous man the realization of his plans. Therefore He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. You may know this to be so from Abraham, who begot Isaac, who resembled him closely, as it is said: These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begot Isaac (Gen. 25:19). And Jacob begot Joseph, who resembled him, as is said: These are the generation of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2). Reuben, Simeon, et al., are not mentioned here but only Joseph. It says also: Because he was the son of his old age (ibid., v. 3). (Word-play on zikunim (“old age”) and kunim (“features”).) Hence, He draweth not His eyes from the righteous.

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

Another comment on These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, etc. (Gen. 37:2). Was not Reuben actually the firstborn? He was, but since he defiled his father’s couch (I Chron. 5:1), his birthright was given to the descendants of Joseph, the descendants of Israel. However, they are not actually accounted as the firstborn in the genealogy of the people. Another explanation. These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph. You find that Joseph resembled his father in every way, and that everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Jacob’s brother was envious of him, and Joseph’s brothers were envious of him; Jacob was exiled to Haran, and Joseph was exiled to Egypt; Jacob said: Whether stolen by day or stolen by night (Gen. 31:39), and Joseph said: For indeed, I was stolen away (ibid. 40:15).

"I will act wisely on the innocent way. Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah. Rabbi Judah says, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, "Appoint for Me a priest." Moses said to Him, "What tribe?" He replied to him, "Do not put Reuben before Me, who sinned with Bilhah, his father's concubine, as it is said (Genesis 35:22), 'And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father's concubine.' " He said to him, "From the tribe of Simeon." He said to him, "They are engaged in violence, which I hate, as it is said (Genesis 49:5), 'Simeon and Levi are brothers, weapons of violence are their wares.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Dan?" He said to him, "They will cause My anger, for they are idolaters, as it is said (Zechariah 10:11), 'And they shall cross the sea with affliction, and smite the waves in the sea, and all the depths of the Nile shall dry up; and the pride of Assyria shall be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt shall depart.' " This is a reference to the image of Micah. Moses therefore warned Israel (Deuteronomy 29:17), "Lest there be among you a man or woman or family or tribe." And it is said (Judges 18:30), "And the children of Dan set up the graven image for themselves." He said to him, "How about the tribe of Joseph?" He said to him, "They speak evil behind their brethren's backs, as it is said (Genesis 37:2), 'And Joseph brought evil tales of them unto their father.' " He said to him, "How about the tribe of Judah?" He said to him, "He is arrogant of eye and wide of heart, as it is said (Genesis 38:15), 'And Judah saw her, and thought her to be a harlot.' " Moses then said, "Whose tribe, then, shall I appoint?" He replied, "Appoint for yourself from your own tribe." Rabbi Nehemiah said, "And there are those who say it in the name of Resh Lakish, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'One who serves Me in this world will serve Me in the World to Come, and will not sit in the midst of My house.' " Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, "A person must be modest within his own home, and needless to say in the home of his friend."

"You rebuked nations. This refers to Amalek, as it is said (Numbers 24:20), 'Amalek was the first of the nations.' You destroyed the wicked. This refers to Esau, the wicked one, as it is said (Malachi 1:4), 'They will call them the border of wickedness.' He committed five sins in one day: he had relations with a betrothed woman, committed murder, denied the resurrection of the dead, denied God's sovereignty, and showed contempt for the birthright. Their name shall be blotted out, as it is said (Exodus 17:14), 'I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek.' Rabbi Levi said: It is written (Genesis 25:23), 'Two nations are in your womb.' What did [God] say to her [Rebecca]? 'Two governments are in your womb.' I reveal to you what is hidden: 'The first of the nations shall emerge from you,' as it is said (Jeremiah 2:3), 'Israel is the holy first fruits of his harvest.' Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: God never needed to rely on an intimate relationship with a woman, except for that righteous woman [Rebecca], and even she was only through the medium of an angel. Rabbi said in the name of Rabbi Yose: It was through the name of Noah's son that [Rebecca] was blessed. 'Two nations are in your womb' - I [God] made seventy nations from [Noah's three sons], as it is said (Genesis 10:19), 'These are the three sons of Noah, and from these the whole earth was populated.' How? Japheth had fourteen descendants, Gog and Magog had thirty, and Ham had thirty. That makes seventy. (Genesis 10:5) 'From these the isles of the nations were separated.' 'And two nations are in your womb' - I will make from one [nation], seventy souls, and they will be fruitful and multiply. Another interpretation of 'two nations' is that one is proud of his wealth, and the other is proud of his royalty: Edom among the nations and Solomon among Israel." Another matter, two nations whose hatred is embedded in your womb, all hate Esau and all hate Jacob. Another matter, two nations that hate each other. They will separate from your womb. From this, we learn that Jacob was born circumcised and uncircumcised. He is one of the thirteen who were born circumcised. Adam, the first man, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Terah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah were all born circumcised. Adam was at the beginning of the creation of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated, "And he begot in his likeness, after his image" (Genesis 5:3). Enoch, as it is stated, "And Enoch walked with God" (Genesis 5:24). And it is stated, "Noah walked with God" (Genesis 6:9). Noah, as it is stated, "Noah was a righteous man" (Genesis 6:9). Shem, as it is stated, "These are the generations of Shem" (Genesis 11:10). Whoever had his name repeated was born circumcised, such as Shem, Shem, Noah, Noah, Terah, Terah. Jacob, as it is stated, "And Jacob was a straightforward man" (Genesis 25:27). And it states, "Jacob, Jacob" (Genesis 46:2). Joseph, as it is stated, "These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph" (Genesis 37:2). This teaches us that he was born circumcised like him [Jacob]. Moses, as it is stated, "Moses, Moses" (Exodus 3:4). And it is stated, "And she saw that he was good" (Exodus 2:2). He was born circumcised. (Samuel I 3:10) (meaning Samuel IV, as it is written) Samuel, Samuel. Isaiah, as it is stated, "The Lord called me from the womb" (Isaiah 49:1). Jeremiah, as it is stated, "Before I formed you in the belly I knew you" (Jeremiah 1:5). David, as it is stated, "A golden Psalm of David" (Psalms 16:1). And much will the young servant serve. Rav Huna said, "If he merited, he will serve, and if not, he will not serve." And when David saw how Esau made Israel slaves, he said before the Holy One, blessed be He, "Rebuke the nations who seek to destroy me" (Psalms 44:6).

Rabbi Ishmael said: Every son of the old age || is beloved of his father, as it is said, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age" (Gen. 37:3). Was he then the son of his old age? Was not Benjamin the son of his old age? But owing to the fact that (Jacob) saw by his prophetic power that (Joseph) would rule in the future, therefore he loved him more than all his sons. And they envied him with a great envy, as it is said, "And his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren; and they hated him" (ibid. 4). Further, because he saw in his dream that in the future he would rule, and he told his father, and they envied him yet more and more, as it is said, "And they hated him yet the more" (ibid. 8). Moreover, he saw the sons of his father's concubines eating the flesh of the roes and the flesh of the sheep whilst they were alive, and he brought a reproach against them before Jacob their father, so that they could not see his face any more (in peace), as it is said, "And they could not speak peaceably unto him" (ibid. 4). Jacob said to Joseph: Joseph, my son ! Verily I have (waited) many days without hearing of the welfare of thy brethren, and of the welfare of the flock, as it is said, "Go now, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flock" (ibid. 14). And the lad was wandering in the field, and the angel Gabriel met him, as it is said, "And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field" (ibid. 15). (The word) "man" (here in this context) is Gabriel only, as it is said, "The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision" (Dan. 9:21).

Our forefather Jacob was 63 when he was blessed. Ishmael died at that time as is written, "Esau saw that Isaac had blessed...Jacob listened to his father...Esau saw [the Canaanite women] were bad [in the eyes of Isaac]...Esau went to Ishmael..."(Genesis 28:9). There seems no need for the verse to state "sister of Nebaioth." What do we learn from the fact that it says "sister of Nebaioth"? We learn that Ishmael died and Nebaioth [Ishmael's firstborn therefore] married off his sister to Esau. Jacob our forefather hid [from Esau] 14 years in the land of Israel and served Eber. Eber died two years after Jacob went to Aram-Naharaim. [Jacob] left and went to Aram-Naharaim and he was found by the well when he was 77 years old and he was in Laban's house for 20 years: 7 before he married any matriarchs, 7 from when he married in the Matriarchs and 6 years after the 11 tribes and Dinah were born. It comes out that all the tribes were born in seven years besides Benjamin. Each and every one each 7 months. He left Aram-Naharaim and came to Succoth and stayed there 18 months as is written "And Jacob went to Succoth" (Genesis 33:17). He left Succoth and went to Bet El and made 6 new encampments close to the place.

Another matter, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances,” Rabbi Abahu said: Every place where ve’eleh is written, it adds to the previous matter, and every place that eleh is written it rejects the previous matter. How so? “This is [eleh] the legacy of the heavens and the earth on the day that they were created” (Genesis 2:4). What did it reject? He had been creating heavens and earth and examining them. They were not pleasing to Him, and He would restore them to emptiness and disorder. When He saw this heavens and earth, they were pleasing to Him. He said: “This is the legacy of the heavens and the earth,” but what came before was not a legacy. Similarly, “this is [eleh] the legacy of Noah” (Genesis 6:9). What did it reject? It rejected the generation of Enosh, the generation of the Flood, and Keinan and his counterparts. Therefore it says: “The sons of Yefet, Gomer and Magog” (Genesis 10:2). (The Torah enters into great detail when enumerating the descendants of Noah, but not with the preceding generations.) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Ishmael son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:12), adds to the previous matter. Who are they? What is written beforehand, as it is stated: “She bore him (Ketura bore for Abraham.) Zimran and Yokshan” (Genesis 25:2). Here, too, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Ishmael son of Abraham…the firstborn of Ishmael is Nevayot” (Genesis 25:12–13). They were wicked like them. (The sons of Ishmael were wicked like the sons of Ketura. ) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy [toledot] of Isaac son of Abraham” (Genesis 25:19) adds to the previous matter, to what was written beforehand: “The sons of Ishmael” (Genesis 25:16). Who was it? It was Esau and his sons, for he was a son of Isaac. If so, it may be said that since only “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy” is written, Jacob, too, who was part of the legacy of Isaac, is included with Esau? You find that every [time the word] toledot appears in the Bible it is written defectively, (It is written without a vav between the tav and lamed or without a vav between the dalet and the tav.) except for: “This is the legacy [toledot] of the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 2:4), and “this is the legacy [toledot] of Peretz” (Ruth 4:18). And there is a compelling reason why it says: “This is the legacy [toledot] of the heavens and the earth” in full. It is because the Holy One blessed be He created His world and there was no angel of death in the world. That is why it is complete. When Adam and Eve sinned, the Holy One blessed be He minimized all the toledot in the Bible. When Peretz arose, his toledot became full, because the Messiah will emerge from him, in whose days the Holy One blessed be He will eliminate death, as it is stated: “He will eliminate death forever” (Isaiah 25:8). That is the reason that toledot of the heavens and earth and toledot of Peretz are full. This is the reason that toledot of Isaac is defective, to exclude Jacob from the category of the wicked. (The Messiah can also be traced back to Jacob, and therefore the word toledot should have been written regarding Isaac with the vav. It is written without the vav as an indication that it is referring only to Esau and not to Jacob. ) Similarly, “this is [eleh] the legacy of Jacob” (Genesis 37:2), it rejected the chieftains of Esau. Similarly, “these are [ve’eleh] the names of the children of Israel” (Exodus 1:1), adds to the previous matter. Who were they? Those who were written beforehand: The children of Reuben and the children of Simeon. (This is a reference to the listing of the descendants of Jacob who came down to Egypt (see Genesis 46:8–27). ) Similarly, “this is [ve’eleh] the legacy of Aaron” (Numbers 3:1) adds to the previous matter. Who were they? Those who were written beforehand: “These are the counted, that Moses and Aaron…counted” (Numbers 1:44). Just like those beforehand were righteous, so, too, these were righteous. (Although the verses regarding Aaron proceed to list Nadav and Avihu, who were killed due to the offering of a strange fire before God (see Numbers 3:2–4), on the whole they were still considered righteous. ) Here, too, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances” adds to the previous matter, that which was written beforehand: “There He instituted for it statutes and ordinances” (Exodus 15:25). Another matter, “these are [ve’eleh] the ordinances.” What is written before this portion? “They shall judge the people at all times” (Exodus 18:22). And it says here: “These are the ordinances,” and the [Ten] Commandments are in the middle. This is analogous to a noblewoman who was walking, an armed guard on this side and an armed guard on that side, and she was in the middle. So, too, the [giving of the] Torah had justice before it and justice after it and it was in the middle. Likewise it says: “I walk on the path of righteousness” (Proverbs 8:20). The Torah says: In which path do I walk? I will walk in the path of those who perform righteousness. “In the midst of the paths of justice” (Proverbs 8:20), the Torah in the middle and justice before it and after it; before it, as it is stated: “There He instituted for it statutes and ordinances,” justice after it, as it is stated: “These are the ordinances.”

"He and Hoshea the son of Nun": Is it not written (Numbers 13:16) "And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun 'Yehoshua'"? Why, then, is it written here "he and Hoshea the son of Nun"? To teach us the righteousness of Yehoshua. I might think that his head "swelled" with his new-found authority; it is, therefore, written "he and Hoshea the son of Nun" — in his righteousness (i.e., his humility). Even though he was appointed to be the leader of the congregation, he remained "Hoshea" in his righteousness. Similarly, (Shemoth 1:5) "And Yosef was in Egypt." Do we not know that Yosef was in Egypt? — The intent is to apprise us of Yosef's righteousness. (Bereshith 37:2) "Yosef … grazed the sheep with his brothers," and even though he became a king in Egypt, he remained in his (original) righteousness. Similarly, (I Samuel 17:14) "and David was the smallest (i.e., the youngest)." Do we not know that David was the youngest? — The intent is to apprise us of David's righteousness. (I Samuel 16:11) (David was) "tending the sheep" of his father, and even though he became the king of Israel, he remained "David" in his smallness.

(Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought evil report of them (the sons of Leah) to their father": He told him that they called their brothers [the sons of the concubines] "servants," and that they were suspect of illicit relations, and of eiver min hachai [(eating a limb torn from a living animal)]. The verse tells us that he told no one else but their father, and this, only in order that he reprove them — in spite of which he should not have done so, for he should first have reproved them himself; for the din of reproof applies even from a disciple to his teacher, and he should not have revealed it to his father. [(And perhaps he did reprove them first and they admitted to him that they should not have called them servants. For, in truth, before Jacob had married them, he had freed them and taken them as wives, as the verse states in respect to them (Ibid.): "the wives of his father." Or perhaps they had contested the suspicion itself saying that it was not true, i.e., that they had not called them servants. As to his suspecting them of illicit relations, this was an error on Joseph's part, for by means of the Sefer Yetzirah they had created a golem in the form of a woman.)]

First of all, the episode of the serpent, who spoke lashon hara of the Holy One Blessed be He and thereby brought death to the world. And (Bereshith 29:20): "If G-d will be with me and guard me," concerning which Chazal have said: "if He will guard me against lashon hara." And the episode of Joseph (Ibid. 37:2): "And Joseph brought their evil talk to their father," this being the catalyst of the descent of the Jews to Egypt. And (Shemoth 2:14): "In truth, the thing has become known" (see Rashi there and what we shall write below). There, too, (4:1) Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, says: "But they will not believe me," and the Blessed L-rd counters (Ibid. 2): "What is this in your hand?" … (3) …and it became a serpent." Also there (6): "And, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." And (Ibid. 17:2): "And the people quarreled with Moses… (7) …over the quarrel of the children of Israel, etc." followed by (8): "And Amalek came and warred with Israel, etc." And (Ibid. 23:1): "You shall not bear a false report, which applies to both the speaker and the receiver [of lashon hara] (as we find in Makkoth 23a), followed by (2): "Do not be after many to do evil." And, in reference to the me'il [the outer robe of the ephod] (Ibid. 28:32): "A border shall there be to its mouth roundabout," and the entire section. And (35): "And its sound will be heard when he comes to the sanctuary, etc." And the entire section of Tazria and Metzora: the plague-spots of houses, the plague-spots of clothing, the plague-spots of men, (Vayikra 13:46): "Solitary shall he sit"— even outside of the camp of Israel. And his atonement— "chirping" birds. And (Ibid. 19:16): "Do not go talebearing among your people," (Ibid. 17): "Reprove, shall you reprove your neighbor, but you shall not bear sin because of him." And (Ibid. 25:17): "You shall not wrong, one man, his fellow," which relates to verbal wronging, which is also in the category of evil speech. And (Bamidbar 5:1): "And they shall send out of the camp every leper"— even if he were as great in Torah as Doeg. And (Ibid. 12:1): "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, etc." And the entire section of Shelach Lecha, which speaks about the spies. And (Ibid. 21:5): "And the people spoke against G-d and against Moses." And (Devarim 23:10): "When you go out as a camp against your foes, guard yourself against every evil thing [davar ra]," concerning which Chazal have said: "davar ra" may be read as "dibbur ra" [evil speech]. And in Tetze, the "giving out of an evil name [motzi shem ra]," and (Ibid. 24:9): "Remember what the L-rd your G-d did to Miriam, etc." And (Ibid. 27:24): "Cursed be he who smites his friend in secret," which refers to lashon hara. And it is known that all of the "cursings" were preceded by blessings; and they opened with blessing, saying: "Blessed is he who does not smite"— whence we derive that one who is heedful in this is blessed.

והוא נער את בני בלהה ואת בני זלפה . We can learn from here how humble Joseph was. Although he was a son of one of Jacob's proper wives, Leah and Rachel, and was very dear to his father, more than all his other brothers, he was content to defer even to his half-brothers, the sons of the maids, as if these wives were נשי יעקב, full-fledged wives of Jacob.

There is a deep significance in the fact that the two words כף and פך consist of the same letters. The only difference between them is that the letter כ in the word כף is כפופה, bent over, closed, whereas the same latter in the word פך is open. The former shape is an inferior one, as it alludes to a closed palm, someone who is tight-fisted. The letter פ alludes to the mouth above. When the letter ך is open, it reminds us of open-handed charity, i.e. פתח את ידך, "open your hand." Having opened one's hand, it is important to keep one's mouth closed as indicated by the shape of the letter פ, when it is כפופה, closed. There is no greater virtue than silence (Avot 1,17). Thus the combination of an open ך, and a closed פ, is an excellent one. Both Joseph and the brothers committed an error. Joseph talked too much by bringing evil gossip about his brothers to his father (37,2). The brothers erred by being greedy for money and stooped low enough to sell their brother Joseph for twenty pieces of silver.

Considering all the foregoing, the verse: אלה תולדות יעקב-יוסף, that the true descendants of Jacob are Joseph, makes perfect sense. Just as the holy body of Jacob was transported to the holy soil of the land of Israel and buried there, so the holy remains of his son Joseph also were eventually interred there. Both their respective bodies had become thoroughly refined, cleansed from impurities, prior to that. Even though their respective bodies did not recapture the state of innocence of Adam before his sin, and could not therefore be clothed in the כתנות של אור, the garments woven out of light, yet their bodies recaptured a large measure of the purity that had been lost in גן עדן.

Just as it is said of the Ineffable Name "G–d is One and His Name is One," so Jacob and the twelve tribes are the parallel of the 12 permutations with which the Ineffable four-lettered Name of G–d can be written. The relationship between Jacob and the twelve tribes and Joseph and the twelve tribes respectively is analogous to the relationship between ה' אחד, on the one hand, and ושמו אחד, on the other. The Zohar has explained this on Parshat Vayetzei. We explained there the relationship between Jacob and Joseph, and the meaning of the emanation תפארת. On Genesis 37, 2, the Zohar goes on to explain that anyone who looked at the face of Joseph remarked on his uncanny resemblance to Jacob. The Torah purposely did not describe Reuben or any other brother as the תולדות of Jacob.

Something similar is true of Joseph. Although Joseph himself is a branch of Jacob, he did father two of the regular tribes, i.e. Ephrayim and Menasseh, whom Jacob compared in status to Reuben and Shimon (Genesis 48, 5). When we look once more at the word אחד, we will find that Joseph was unique in having a close connection with both the letter ח i.e. the brothers of Jacob's major wives, seeing he himself was one of those. He was also closely attached to the sons of Jacob's concubines, since the Torah describes Joseph as being raised primarily among the sons of Zilpah and Bilhah (37, 2). Considering the expression והוא נער, also stressed in that verse, we find in it an allusion to something I have previously mentioned, namely that יעקב contains an allusion to the letter ו in the four-lettered Ineffable Name. The name יוסף must then be viewed as a miniature edition of that same letter in G–d's name. The scriptural allusion to this concept is found in Isaiah 10, 19 ונער יכתבם, "and a lad will write them down." [This is probably an error, and should have been a quote from Isaiah 11, 6 ונער קטן נוהג בם. Ed.]

There are five בתי אבות, family-sources, which have to be viewed as "above" the concept of land distribution. They are the three patriarchs, to whom the land was promised, but who never took possession of it even though they pined for it and were buried in it. Then there is Joseph, who is described as the direct continuation of Jacob in Genesis 37,2: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף. [there was no other reason for the Torah to tell us this fact which we all knew. Ed.] Joseph expressed an ardent desire to be buried in the land of Israel, and made his brothers swear an oath that they would take his bones with them at the time of the redemption from Egypt (Genesis 50,24). There is also Levi, whose descendants did not share in the land, for the Torah describes G–d Himself as their inheritance (Deut. 18,1). We must realize that these five people (or groups of people) were on a spiritual level where they did not need their share of land on earth in order to have their share of the land of Israel in the Celestial Domain. That region is the root of the terrestrial ארץ ישראל. The letter ה in the words במקום ה-זה, alludes to these five categories of people who spiritually outranked the other twelve, i.e. 12 =זה. There is also a special significance in the number five when we consider the five manifestations of G–d's Presence that were missing during the time of the second Temple. This means that there was a residual presence of חרב, i.e. חורבן, destruction, during the entire period of the second Temple. Our sages expressed this in terms of the missing letter ה, in the word ואכבד in Chagai 1,8, where the word should have been the same as in Exodus 14,4, ואכבדה בפרעה (cf. Rashi on that verse in חגי). In the future (third Temple) these five manifestations of G–d's שכינה will be restored. Not only will they be restored, but such a future will herald new spiritual heights when the original light that permeated the universe immediately after the Creation will also be restored. It is the time described in Isaiah 25,9 as: זה ה' קוינו לו, "This is the Lord whom we have hoped for." At that time the promise in Leviticus 26,12: והתהלכתי בתוככם, "I will be walking among you," will also be fulfilled.

את בלהה שפחתה לאשה, “her servantmaid Bilhah as wife.” This was similar to what Leah had received from her father when she had married. She also gave that servant maid to her husband Yaakov, as reported in 30,9. We know that Joseph in his early years kept company with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah who are described there as his father’s “wives.” (Genesis 37,2) This teaches that these women were not concubines, but regular wives with all the financial security that such a status guarantees the wife. None of the 12 “tribes” were born to women who were merely concubines. The only time when the expression “concubine” is used about them is when they are mentioned in comparison to Rachel and Leah, when the indiscretion of Reuven is alluded to by the Torah in both Genesis 35,22, and 49,4. Gad and Asher had already been born when that indiscretion took place.

תולדות נח, the word תולדות, refers to happenings and their causes. For instance: Proverbs 27,1 כי לא תדע מה ילד היום, “for you do not know what the day will bring.” Rashi offers the same interpretation concerning the line: אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף, “these are the descendants of Yaakov, Joseph.” (Genesis 37,2). The Torah now readies itself to record the history of mankind as if it had commenced with Noach, and it attributes events that will be described as the direct or indirect result of Noach’s influence on them. It sums up the difference by describing Noach as a righteous man, when compared with his ancestors. It attributes the demise of his ancestors as basically due to their wickedness, [even though a few individuals in each generation had not been wicked. Ed.]

It goes without saying that this is not what the Golden Calf episode, or the command of Shabbat, were originally about. Yet there is a serious point at stake. The Torah continues to be relevant and incisive in our time – and this is part of what Torah min hashamayim, “Torah from heaven,” (The phrase comes from Mishna, Sanhedrin 10:1. ) actually means. If Torah is, as we believe, the word of God, then we cannot interpret it as we would a human document. Just as God is eternal, so is His word. Hence the primacy in Judaism of midrash (the applied sense) as against peshat (the “plain” sense). (See on this the important methodological note by Rashbam in his commentary to Genesis 37:2. The sages, he says, were preoccupied by midrash; he dedicates his commentary to “the deep plain sense of Scripture” (omek peshuto shel mikra). There is a large literature on the subject, but see especially Raphael Loewe, “The ‘Plain’ Meaning of Scripture in Early Jewish Exegesis,” Papers of the Institute of Jewish Studies, vol. 1 (London:, 1964); David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).)

We see this clearly in the Torah, most obviously in the case of Joseph and his brothers. We read at the beginning of the story that Joseph “brought an evil report” about some of his brothers to his father (Gen. 37:2). This and other factors led to a complete breakdown of communication between them: “When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him” (literally: “they could not speak him to peace,” 37:4). Eventually, they plotted to kill him and sold him as a slave. Where relationships are damaged by evil speech, communication breaks down, and violence is often waiting in the wings.

'ויחי יעקב בארץ מצרים וגו, “Why did the Torah mention the number of years that Yaakov lived in Egypt? We could have figured this out from the data the Torah already provided us with about how old Joseph was when he left the house of father, (Genesis 37,2) how old he was when he was appointed as viceroy by Pharaoh, and from the age of Yaakov (130) at the time of his death which is listed in the same verse. The point the Torah wished us to appreciate is that just as for the first seventeen years of his life Yaakov, his father, had provided for him, during the last seventeen years of his life, his son Joseph provided for his father.

THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS. Toledot (generations) means the events that transpired during his lifetime, as in what a day may bring forth (yeled) (Prov. 27:1). These are the generations of Jacob (Gen. 37:2) is similar.

Initially Joseph had flaws in his character. He was vain about his appearance; (Genesis Rabba 84:7; see Rashi on Gen. 37:2.) he brought his father evil reports about his brothers; (Gen. 37:2, and see Genesis Rabba 84:7.) his narcissism led directly to the advances of Potiphar’s wife. (Tanḥuma, Vayeshev 8.) But the story of which he was a part was not a Greek tragedy. By its end – the death of Joseph in the final chapter of Genesis – he had become a different human being entirely, one who forgave his brothers the crime they committed against him, the man who saved an entire region from famine and starvation, the one Jewish tradition calls “the tzaddik.” (Yoma 35b.)

How dangerous lashon hara can be is illustrated by the story of Joseph and his brothers. The Torah says that Joseph “brought an evil report” to his father about some of his brothers (Gen. 37:2). This was not the only provocation that led his brothers to plot to kill him and eventually sell him as a slave. There were several other factors. But his derogatory gossip did not endear him to his siblings. No less disastrous was the “evil report” (diba; the Torah uses the same word as it does in the case of Joseph) brought back by the spies about the land of Canaan and its inhabitants (Num. 13:32). Even after Moses’ prayers to God for forgiveness, the report delayed entry to the land by almost forty years and condemned a whole generation to die in the wilderness.

If you were to point out that we find Bilhah described as a bondwoman even after she had slept with Jacob (30,7) and already bore him a second son, this simply means that she used to be Rachel's bondwoman. The Torah there was also interested in pointing out that the matriarchs attributed such righteousness to their husbands and it is certain that the Torah did not need to be afraid that someone would misunderstand having previously outlined what Rachel had in mind (compare what we have written in Genesis 37,2).

למטה יוסף למטה מנשה, “from the tribe of Joseph, i.e. from the tribe of Menashe.” Above (v. 8) the Torah mentioned the tribe of Ephrayim, seeing he was the more important one. The reason that Joseph’s name was mentioned here, as he too was guilty of slander, when he told his father about the activities of his brothers (Genesis 37:2), and therefore the Torah mentioned him with Menashe, as Gadi ben Sodi (the spy representing Menashe) had been one of those guilty of spreading slander, whereas (Joshua, the spy representing) Ephrayim was innocent. The reason Joshua and Calev are not mentioned successively, so that Calev be “surrounded” by the names of spies, since he spoke as if he was with them (when his heart was not with them). It is not the case for Joshua, therefore he was mentioned separately, as he was not implicated with the rest.

In this verse Solomon wishes to extol the virtue of charity in the wake of which much reward may be expected; in fact, the performance of that good deed may add years to one’s life (compare Psalms 19,12). The practice of charity is a panacea for both body and soul. It is capable of overcoming what is in store for people based on the mazzal they have been born under. We have proof of this in Samuel I 26,10 where David speaks of: “or his time will come and he will die.” What he meant was that the person’s day of death will approach sooner than had been originally scheduled. Death may sometimes occur sooner than originally scheduled, such as in the case of David of whom we read in Kings I 2,1 “David’s days approached to die.” On the other hand, there are instances when years are added to the life of a person who had been born under horoscopic influences which presaged a much shorter life for him. The best known example of this was the King Chiskiyah who, though he had been told by the prophet Isaiah to make his last will and testament, was granted an additional 15 years in response to his prayer (Isaiah 38,4-8). Conversely, we find that the life span of a person may be shortened from what had originally been decreed for him as we find in the case of King Yehoram son of Achazyah who was punished for his idolatry. We find in Kings II 1,16 that Elijah told him: “because you sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zevuv the god of Ekron — as if there were no G’d in Israel whose word you could seek — assuredly you shall not rise from the bed which you are lying on but you shall die.” This is what prompted Solomon to say that charity is such a powerful virtue that it can overcome even decrees of death. Its power is equal to that of “being fruitful and multiplying.” The word חיים in the sequence בארח צדקה חיים means that an additional life span may be granted in recognition of the charity one practices. The word מות, “death,” in the second half of our verse refers to shortening someone’s life expectancy as retribution for some sin committed. We are told in Baba Batra 11 that a certain righteous individual Binyamin, who was in charge of the distribution of public charity once had a certain woman approach him during a year of famine. The woman said to him: “please support me!” He answered her that there were no funds left in the kuppah. Thereupon she said to him: “if you do not provide me with food, a woman and her seven children will surely die.” He then gave her of his own money. Some time later, this very Binyamin fell sick and was on the point of death. At that point the angels said to G’d: “did You not say that anyone who keeps alive even a single Jew is considered as if he had kept a whole world alive? Did not this Binyamin save the lives of a woman and her seven children? Why does he have to die so young?” Thereupon the decree ordering his death was torn up and he had 22 years added to his life span. The words ודרך נתיבה אל מות mean that because a person is performing constant acts of charity he may be certain that he does not die prematurely. Translated literally: “there is no death on its path.” This idea is expressed also by Proverbs 10,2 צדקה תציל ממות, “charity saves from death.” This means that the person who practices charity does not die before his appointed time thanks to his acts of charity. Seeing that on occasion acts of charity are the reason why someone’s life span is extended beyond what was originally decreed, it is only logical that such acts protect the person performing them against dying prematurely. The subject matter of charity, how to practice it, and in what amount to practice it is quite complicated; the fundamental ingredient of doing charity is that one gives to someone else something which belongs to one. There are many ways of doing this. A minimal performance of the commandment would be giving a small alms to a Gentile. The next higher level of charity would be giving a similar amount to a Jewish person from another town who is in need. A still higher level of charity is giving this amount to a needy Jew from your own city. This is based on Exodus 22,24 “the poor person who lives amongst you.” A poor person residing in your house takes precedence in his claim on your charity over someone who lives out of town. A poor person who is also a next of kin takes precedence over another poor person of your hometown. The relevant verse in Isaiah 58,7 states: “do not ignore your own kin.” A still higher level of charity is to provide one’s children with a livelihood. Our sages (Ketuvot 50) applied to this Psalms 106,3 “Happy are those who do right at all times.” They argued that it is not possible to do right at all times as most people do not become called upon to perform acts of charity all the time. The only way they can fulfill what the psalmist talks about is by providing for their children while they are minors. The next higher level of performing charity is looking after one’s aged parents financially. By doing this one also fulfills the commandment to honour father and mother. This is the finest way of doing charity. When one does this one may be in line for living to a ripe old age oneself. This is why the Torah wrote in connection with this commandment (Exodus 20,12) “in order that you may experience long life on the earth that the Lord your G’d is assigning to you.” This is precisely what Solomon termed בארך צדקה חיים, that the path to life is righteousness. G’d repays measure for measure. If children keep their parents alive longer by ensuring that they can enjoy their old age, G’d in turn will recompense the children in a similar manner. We see a perfect example of this principle in the relationship between Yaakov and Joseph. Yaakov had provided for Joseph during the first 17 years of his life; in our Parshah we are told that Joseph repaid his father by providing for him during the last 17 years of his life. This is why the Torah (Genesis 47,28) was at pains to write: “Yaakov lived in Egypt for 17 years.” [Had the Torah not wanted to make this point it could simply have written that Yaakov lived for a total of 147 years. We know that he was 130 years old when he was presented to Pharaoh. Ed.]

According to Midrash Tanchuma Ki Teytze 10 the words: “and he did not fear G’d,” mean that the people of Amalek (descendants of Esau) had a tradition that they could be defeated only by descendants of Rachel seeing that we have a verse in Jeremiah 49,20 אם לא יסחבום צעירי הצאן, “(hear then the plan G’d has devised against Edom) surely the shepherd boys shall drag them away.” These latter words are understood to refer to the youngest of the tribes of Israel, the ones which have been described as נער, (compare Genesis 37,2 where Joseph is described in these terms). We find that also Edom is described as junior in Ovadiah 2, קטן, “junior,” and it is appropriate that a junior such as Edom be defeated by another junior. The reason is that Joseph who attained prominence and remained loyal to G’d although in the environment of two sinners (Pharaoh and Potiphar) without learning from their deeds, is so superior to Esau who grew up between two righteous people (Yitzchak and Avraham) and still did not learn from the good deeds of those righteous people. The Torah testifies that Joseph said: “I fear the Lord,” (Genesis 44,18) as opposed to Amalek. No wonder that the one was doomed to fall by the hand of the other. [If Moses chose the נער Joshua to battle Amalek this was because he was a descendant of Ephrayim, a son of Joseph. Ed.]

A Midrashic approach(Shemot Rabbah 2): “wherever a paragraph is introduced with the word אלה, this signifies that there is no conceptual linkage to what was written now to what had preceded it immediately before. On the contrary, what follows is a contrast to what preceded it. Examples are Genesis 2,4: “these are the descendants of heaven and earth.” Up until then the Torah had described new creatures; from this point on it describes derivatives of existing creatures. It is as if G’d had said: “the former ones I did derive satisfaction from, the ones following them I did not derive satisfaction from.” “These are the descendants of Noach (Genesis 6,9).” By writing the introduction אלה, the Torah hints that the descendants of prior generations such as those of the generation of Enosh and the people who had to be killed during the deluge did not have much in common with the descendants of Noach. We find something similar in Genesis 37,2: ”these are the descendants of Yaakov.” Here too the Torah wants to draw a dividing line between the descendants of Esau and those of Yaakov. On the other hand, wherever a paragraph commences with the word ואלה, this indicates that what follows is sort of a continuation of what had been related previously. When the Book of Exodus commences with the words ואלה שמות בני ישראל, the Torah endeavours to pick up the thread about what we had learned about Yaakov’s sons in the Book of Genesis, a story which had been interrupted by Israel’s death and burial. The Torah wishes to describe the children of Yaakov as sharing in the virtues which distinguished their illustrious father. Here too, the words ואלה המשפטים, indicate that just as the commandments engraved on the Tablets were received at Mount Sinai, what will be related from here on in was also received from G’d by Moses at Mount Sinai. The Torah comprises laws at its beginning, in the middle, and at the end (Shemot Rabbah 30,3). In Exodus 15,25 we were told that G’d gave laws to the Jewish people at Marah; moreover in 18,2 the Torah stated that judges were to be ready to dispense justice at all times convenient to the litigants. Now, after the giving of the Ten Commandments the Torah continues to present the Jewish people with a list of laws. The words ואלה המשפטים and what follows provide the framework for the Ten Commandments which were both preceded by pieces of legislation and followed by more pieces of legislation. This is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote in Proverbs 8,20: “I walk the path of righteousness, in the path of justice.” Another approach (Shemot Rabbah 30,9): when David said in Psalms 147,19: “He issued His words to Yaakov, His statutes and social laws to Israel,” you have to carve up this phrase as follows: the words: “He tells His words to Yaakov” refer to the Ten Commandments; the words: “His statutes and social laws to Israel,” refer to our portion here, the one which commences with the words ואלה המשפטים; the words לא עשה כן לכל גוי ומשפטים, mean that “He did not do so” (give social laws to all other nations). However, He did give to Adam, and thereby to all of mankind, six statutes. When Noach appeared, He added a seventh commandment, אבר מן החי. [seeing that after the deluge mankind had been permitted to eat meat and to kill animals in order to provide themselves with meat, this prohibition of eating flesh taken from living tissue, from a live animal had to be given at that time. Ed.] When Avraham appeared on the stage of history an eighth commandment, circumcision of the males at eight days of age, was added to the existing range of commandments. With the advent of Yaakov, and after his successful encounter with the guardian angel of Esau, a ninth commandment, that of not eating the femoral sinew was introduced. When Israel stood at Mount Sinai they were given the Ten Commandments which symbolized the remainder of the Torah. This is the meaning of the words כף אחת עשרה זהב מלאה קטרת, (Numbers 7,14). The allegorical meaning of that phrase is: “the Torah which was given to the Jewish people from the hand of G’d to the hand of Moses is אחת, “one,” consisting of עשרה, “Ten Commandments” which in effect are מלאה קטרת, “filled with incense” a word totaling 613 (when exchanging the letter ר for the letter ד when using the system of א'ת, ב''ש etc. (compare our comments on Exodus 20,16 on the section dealing with the letter קוף being a natural alternative for the letter ד) When the Israelites stood at Mount Sinai and said: “all that the Lord has said we shall do and we shall hear,” He said to them: “here the whole Torah has been given to you.” This is what David said in Psalms 147,19 that “G’d had not given all these righteous laws to any other nation.” Rabbi Eliezer said: “when there is justice down here on earth, there is no justice in the heaven above (i.e. there is no need to apply the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions). When there is no justice on earth, then G’d has to invoke the attribute of Justice in the celestial regions” [to compensate for the absence of justice on earth. Ed.] G’d said: “if I had been required to invoke the attribute of Justice for even a single hour, the universe would not have been able to continue to exist.” This is what Isaiah had in mind when he said (Isaiah 27,4) “if I were to have to march into battle, I would have to burn all of it.“ (the vineyard which serves as Isaiah’s simile). Isaiah explains in the following verse: “But if he holds fast to My refuge, He makes Me his friend, He makes Me His friend.” The prophet means that if man, i.e. Israel, will cleave to Torah law then all will be well. This is also what the sages (Tanchuma) had in mind when they said that Israel would not have lost its independence had they not failed to observe the laws of the Torah and the maintenance of a fair judicial system. They were punished by what is described in Job 4,20 as “shattered between daybreak and evening perishing forever unnoticed.” This is what would happen if the ordinances G’d placed before the Israelites in our portion would be ignored by them.

אלה תולדות נח, נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו, the meaning of the word תולדות is similar to “history of,” i.e. this it what happened to Noach, etc. It concerns both the deluge and what came after. We encounter the same pattern when the Torah introduced a paragraph with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, יוסף in Genesis 37,2 where this is an introduction to history related to Yaakov’s family. In Proverbs 27,1 we have a verse concluding with the words “the day will give birth to.” The root ילד is the root of the word תולדה and תולדות, i.e. it refers to future developments. Developments are matters that are the result of days following one another.

AND THEY BROUGHT FORTH ‘DIBATH’ (AN EVIL REPORT OF) THE LAND WHICH THEY HAD SPIED OUT UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. The meaning of this is that the spies left Moses and Aaron and [went around] saying in the [people’s] tents that it is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof. (Verse 32.) For at first when they spoke to the people in front of Moses and Aaron [saying] that the Land … floweth with milk and honey but that the people are fierce, (Verses 27-28.) and Caleb said, for we are well able to overcome it, (Verse 30.) the people hesitated [between these two opinions], and there were some of them who [still] trusted in their power and strength, and some of them [who trusted] in the help of the Eternal against the mighty. (Judges 5:23.) Then the spies spread the evil report in front of the people themselves, as it is written, the Land through which we have passed to spy it out, is a Land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof, etc., (Verse 32.) until they caused the whole congregation (Further, 14:2.) to complain, this being the sense of the verse stating, and they returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up an evil report against the Land. (Ibid., Verse 36.) This happened because when the spies saw the [Amorite] people whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks, (Amos 2:9.) the fear of them was fallen upon them (Esther 8:17.) and they made the hearts of their brothers melt. (Deuteronomy 1:28.) And when they saw that the Israelites were still considering going up [to the Land], and that Joshua and Caleb were encouraging them to do so, they invented a false report in order to frustrate their [intention of] going up by all possible means. Know that he who “bringeth forth ‘dibah’” is a fool (Proverbs 10:8.) who speaks falsely, but he who tells a truthful [bad report] is called “one who ‘brings’ dibah,” as it is said, and Joseph brought ‘dibatham ra’ah’ (evil report of them) unto their father. (Genesis 37:2. This shows that when Scripture uses the expression “he ‘brings’ dibah” it means that he tells the truth as he sees, and when it uses the expression “bringeth forth” [which is in Hebrew a different verb], it means a false report. See also Ramban ibid., Vol. I, p. 449.) It was for this [false report] that they were punished by death through a plague, as it is said, And those men that ‘brought forth’ an evil report of the Land, died by the plague before the Eternal. (Further, 14:37. Thus, in speaking of the spies having brought forth an evil report, Scripture by using the word ra’ah (evil) wishes to emphasize that not only was their report false but that it was also of an exceedingly evil nature.)

OF THE CHILDREN OF JOSEPH, NAMELY, OF THE CHILDREN OF EPHRAIM. Scripture mentioned Ephraim before Menasheh, and stated Joseph’s relationship to him [which it does not do in the case of Menasheh], (Verse 34.) and similarly later [Scripture gave Ephraim precedence] at the [division of the tribes according to their] standards, by making him master of the standard, [whilst Menasheh is mentioned merely as one of the two tribes gathered around him], because in accordance with Jacob’s blessing (Genesis 48:20.) he was to be [given the honor accorded to] the firstborn, and his brother [Menasheh] was to be second to him. Moreover, the sons of Ephraim were more numerous than those of Menasheh (Ephraim totalled 40,500 (Verse 33), whilst Menasheh numbered 32,200 (Verse 35).) [and hence Ephraim was mentioned first]. But at the second census in the plains of Moab (Further, 26:3.) Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, because at that time his sons were more numerous [than those of Ephraim], (The children of Menasheh were then 52,700 (ibid., Verse 34), whilst Ephraim had only 32,500 (ibid., Verse 37).) and [also because] they took their inheritance first. (Half of the tribe of Menasheh joined the tribes of Gad and Reuben in settling during the lifetime of Moses on the east side of the Jordan (ibid., 32:33).) Similarly when mentioning the princes of the Land [who were to take possession of the Land for their respective tribes] Scripture mentioned Menasheh first, and also Joseph’s relationship to him. (Ibid., 34:23: Of the children of Joseph; of the tribe of the children of Menasheh. In the following verse Scripture mentions the prince of the children of Ephraim.) In [the story of] the spies, however, Scripture mentioned Ephraim first, and Joseph’s relationship it stated only in referring to the tribe of Menasheh. (Ibid., 13:8, 11.) It appears to me by way of homiletic exposition that it is on account of the evil report that Joseph brought [to his father] concerning his brothers (Genesis 37: 2.) that Scripture, [in the story of the spies], associates with him the spy who [was among those who] spread the evil report [about the Land, namely the spy from the tribe of Menasheh, whereas the spy from the tribe of Ephraim was Joshua the son of Nun, who was not among those who spread the evil report]. Or it may be that Scripture [in relating the story of the spies] gave honor to both [tribes who were descended from Joseph], and Ephraim had sufficient honor in its prince [Joshua the son of Nun who ministered to Moses, therefore Scripture mentioned the honor of descent from Joseph only in the case of Menasheh].

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

when he was still a youth, he started to seek The meaning is that although he was still a youth, he started to seek after the God of David his father. This is similar to (Gen. 37:2): “and as a youth, with the sons of Bilhah, etc., Joseph brought evil reports of them,” and this is not surprising, but if he were thirty years old, he would not have done it. It is, however, surprising, that he (Josiah) was a youth, and nevertheless, he started to seek, etc.

the gossip of many Heb. דבת, the counsel of many. דבת is an expression of (Song 7:10): “making the lips of the sleeping speak (דבב).” Likewise, every דבת in Scripture, parledic in Old French, gossip (so Gen. 37:2, Num. 14:36, Ezek. 36:3).

The text (Bereshit 37:2) gives us an additional hint to Yosef ’s early political behavior by mentioning a seemingly unimportant fact – that he would spend his time with the children of Bilhah. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch provides us with a highly plausible explanation for this behavior. Could it not be that Yosef preferred to be with the children of maidservants, because they viewed themselves as his social inferiors? When he was with them, there was no contest for leadership and he could pursue his calling – without engendering the bitterness of Leah’s children, who might have viewed their young brother’s ambitions with suspicion.

There are many interpretations. One, however, is particularly fascinating in terms of both style and substance. It comes from Rashi’s grandson, Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (Rashbam, France, c. 1085–1158). Rashbam had a strikingly original approach to biblical commentary. (He expounds on this in his commentary on Genesis 37:2.)

Twelve years had passed since Joseph’s birth, (Seder Olam 2.) and since Jacob emerged shalem, (Genesis 33:18.) complete, from the dangers of Laban and Esau. His house was built; he was named Israel by God. (Genesis 35:10.) The birth of Joseph marked a critical juncture for Jacob. Joseph was his ben zekunim, (Genesis 37:3.) the beloved child of his old age, (R. Saadiya Gaon, Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3.) who seemed to round out the patriarch’s household. (“These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years old… ” Genesis 37:2.) And yet, Jacob was not done, and his house was not truly complete, for Rachel had not yet given everything that she could to Beit Yisrael. Upon the birth of Joseph, she recognized instantly that this must not be her final act – that “God should grant me another son” (yosif Hashem li ben aĥer), and even named Joseph in that hope. Only with Benjamin, who resembled her more purely than did Joseph, was the family of Israel to be whole.

ויוציאו דבת הארץ....אל בני ישראל, “They slandered the land of Israel ..in their report to the Jewish people.” The principal effrontery of the spies was the fact that they reported to and appealed to the people directly, instead of making their report to the commander-in-chief, Moses, who was the one who had selected them for their mission by going around to the tents of the people and telling them that the land of Canaan was devouring its inhabitants, whereas originally in the presence of Moses and Aaron they had praised the land, describing how it was flowing with milk and honey. This was a treacherous and underhanded manner of discharging their task. Originally, they had only described the people in that land as strong, which by itself was not too serious a departure from what they had been asked to report about. When Calev had assured the people of his conviction that they would be able to successfully conquer that land the people had still tended to believe him. There were at that time, still quite a number of the people who possessed either self confidence or trust in G’d’s ability and willingness to help them conquer that land. When the spies had become aware of this, they embarked on an intensive campaign to undermine the confidence of those people by spreading the stories of the many people they had observed dropping dead. This was another example of misinterpretation. G’d had allowed even giants to collapse, in order to demonstrate how tenuous was even those supermen’s hold on life, whereas the spies, bent of interpreting everything in the most negative manner, concluded that the climate of the land causes the collapse of its inhabitants. In order to counter the impression Joshua and Calev had made on the people, the spies now resorted to fabrications, deliberate exaggerations, etc. The expression להוציא דבה means more than to highlight the negative aspects of something, it means to spread tales of a negative character that are entirely fictitious, represent as facts figments of the imagination of the tale-bearer. The party spreading such untruths hopes to make them believable because he had initially told his listeners a considerable number of true facts. This is also why the Torah reports Joseph as bringing דבתם רעה, “evil reports,” about his brothers to his father. He had reported a number of facts faithfully, so that his fabrications would also be believed by his father, Genesis 37,2, It was this latter aspect of the spies’ activities that caused G’d to punish them by making these ten men die on the spot through the plague. (14,37)

It is in accordance with this that Joseph is always called the young and youngest. For when he is keeping the flock with his bastard brothers, he is spoken of as young (Gen. 37:2), and when his father prays for him he says, “my youngest son, though grown, return to me” (Gen. 49:22).

[119] Now one form of generation is the process by which things are drawn and journey so to speak from non-existence to existence, and this process is that which is always necessarily followed by plants and animals. But there is also another which consists in the change from the higher genus to the lower species, and this it is which Moses had in mind when he says, “But these are the generations of Jacob. Joseph was seventeen years old, keeping sheep with his brethren, being still young, with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zelpah, his father’s wives” (Gen. 37:2).

What was the fence that Job made around his words? It says (Job 1:5), “A pure and righteous man, who fears God and turns away from evil.” This teaches us that Job distanced himself from anything that would bring him to sin, from any ugliness, and from anything even resembling ugliness. If that is so, then why do we have to also learn that he was “a pure and righteous man”? But instead, this is here to teach us that Job emerged [from the womb] already circumcised. Adam also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 1:24), “And God created the person in His image.” Seth also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 5:2), “He had a child in his likeness and image.” Noah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 6:9), “A just and pure man in his generation.” Shem also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 14:18), “Malkitzedek, king of Shalem.” (Malkitzedek is understood in rabbinic tradition to be Shem. The Hebrew word shalem means “complete.”) Jacob also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 25:27), “Jacob was a pure man, who sat in tents.” Joseph also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Genesis 37:2), “This is the progeny of Jacob: Joseph.” But shouldn’t it say [instead]: This is the progeny of Jacob: Reuben? What do we learn from [the fact that it says] Joseph? [We learn] that just as Jacob emerged already circumcised, (so, too,) Joseph emerged already circumcised. Moses also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Exodus 2:2), “She saw that he was good.” And what did his mother see in him that was lovelier and more praiseworthy than any other person? That he emerged circumcised. Bil’am the wicked also came out circumcised, as it says (Numbers 24:4), “The word of him who hears God’s speech.” (Samuel also emerged circumcised, as it says [I Samuel 2:26], “Young Samuel continued to grow and was good.”) David also emerged circumcised – as it says (Psalms 16:1), “A mikhtam (A ketem (which has the same Hebrew letters as mikhtam) can mean a type of spot or marking.) of David. (Protect me, for I seek refuge in You).” Jeremiah also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Jeremiah 1:5), “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you; and before you came out of the womb I consecrated you.” Zerubbabel also emerged already circumcised, as it says (Haggai 2:23), “On that day (I will take,) [declares the Eternal of Hosts, I will take] Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel, declares the Eternal.” And it says (Job 31:1), “I have made a covenant with my eyes, so how can I gaze at a maiden [i.e., an unmarried woman]?” This teaches that Job was strict with himself and would not even look at a maiden. And if with a maiden – whom he could marry if he wished (to his son, to his daughter, or to [another] family member) – he was strict with himself and would not look at her, then all the more so [would he never look at] a married woman! And why was he so strict with himself not to look even at a maiden? Because Job said to himself: Perhaps I will look today, and tomorrow another man will come along and marry her, and then I will have looked at a married woman.

Rather, doesn’t your teacher Rabbi Yonatan say like this: It was appropriate for the child receiving the status of firstborn to emerge from Rachel, as it is written: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2), indicating that Joseph was Jacob’s primary progeny. But Leah advanced ahead of Rachel with appeals for mercy, i.e., with prayer, and thereby earned the status as firstborn for her firstborn. But because of the modesty that Rachel possessed, the Holy One, Blessed be He, returned the status as firstborn to her. This is why Jacob gave the status as firstborn to Joseph.

From the same source, Rabbi Levi said: One should always anticipate fulfillment of a good dream up to twenty-two years after the dream. From where do we derive this? From Joseph, as it is written in the story of Joseph’s dream: “These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, being seventeen years old, was feeding the flock with his brethren” (Genesis 37:2); and it is written: “And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh King of Egypt” (Genesis 41:46). From seventeen to thirty how many years are they? Thirteen; and add seven years of plenty and two of famine; the total is twenty-two and only then was the dream fulfilled when his brothers came and bowed down to him.

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Everywhere that it is stated: And he dwelt, it is nothing other than an expression of pain, of an impending calamity, as it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab” (Numbers 25:1). It is stated: “And Jacob dwelt in the land where his father had sojourned in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 37:1), and it is stated thereafter: “And Joseph brought evil report of them to his father” (Genesis 37:2), which led to the sale of Joseph. And it is stated: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt in the land of Goshen” (Genesis 47:27), and it is stated thereafter: “And the time drew near that Israel was to die” (Genesis 47:29). It is stated: “And Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree” (I Kings 5:5), and it is stated thereafter: “And the Lord raised up an adversary to Solomon, Hadad the Edomite; he was of the king’s seed in Edom” (I Kings 11:14).

It is taught in a baraita: Joseph was deserving of having twelve tribes descend from him, the same as twelve tribes descended from his father Jacob, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). This implies that everything that happened to Jacob was destined to happen to Joseph. However, he did not merit this because his semen was emitted from between his fingernails. And even so, the offspring that were meant to descend from him descended from his brother Benjamin, who had ten sons. And they were all named after Joseph, as it is stated: “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21).

This is the history of Yaakov; Yoseif at the age of seventeen years, would tend the sheep with his brothers, and the lad was [he had been raised] with the sons of Bilhah, and the sons of Zilpah, his father’s wives. Yoseif brought back bad reports about them to their father.

These are the generations of Jakob. Joseph was a son of seventeen years. He had come forth from the school, and was a youth brought up with the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpha his fathers wives. And Joseph brought their evil report; for he had seen them eat the flesh that had been torn by wild beasts, the ears and the tails; and he came and told it to his father.

YOSEF, THE TZADDIK OF COMPASSION In this section Reb Noson brings further proof that Yosef HaTzaddik is identified with bringing everyone nearer to HaShem and illuminating them with perceptions of Godliness. This is why he is called Yosef, as alluded to in “God asaf my shame.” Yosef gathers in and eliminates all disgrace and embarrassment from the Jewish people, since he brings them to teshuvah and so closer to HaShem. This is the meaning of “May HaShem yosef for me another son,” on account of which he is called Yosef. This means that the tzaddik always works le-hosif, to add, and to draw close new souls each time. () 130 The word asaf is formed of the three root letters (יוסף) meaning “gather.” The name Yosef ,(אסף) ASF are formed of the (להוסיף) and the word le-hosif meaning ,(יסף) etymologically similar root letters YSF “add.” The tzaddik, personified by Yosef HaTzaddik, serves HaShem by gathering in those who have grown distant from Him and thus adding to the souls who serve Him. He constantly requests this of HaShem, as alluded to in “May HaShem add for me another son,” in the sense that each time HaShem should add for him a new student—since a student is called a son, because “whoever teaches Torah to his friend’s son is considered as if he fathered him.” (Sanhedrin 19b.) He constantly searches and seeks to add new people and bring them near, as in “May HaShem yosef for me another son.”

Therefore the verse states, “Now, Yisrael loved Yosef more than all his sons, for he was the son of his zekunim.” (This reflects Chazal’s teaching that “zakein” denotes someone with wisdom (Kiddushin 32b).) Yisrael loved him greatly because of this—because Yosef desired to show compassion for everyone and to design ways to bring everyone near. This is the meaning of “for [Yosef] was the son of his zekunim.” Zakein, elder, denotes the trait of very great compassion, as in the midrashic depiction of HaShem at Sinai as “a zakein full of compassion.” (Mekhilta, Parashat Beshalach 4.) Kabbalistic teaching states that the Thirteen Rectifications of the Zakan, the Supernal Beard, similarly signify very great compassion. (As mentioned above, Ohr HaPanim is the Light that shines from the Countenance of the Divine persona of Arikh Anpin (see note 13 above). The Arizal teaches that the channels through which this Light descends are the hairs of Arikh Anpin’s Countenance, otherwise known as the Thirteen Rectifications of the Beard (Sefer HaLikutim, Toldot). The Zohar (III, 131a) associates these Thirteen Rectifications with the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy through which we evoke Heaven’s compassion, as brought in Shemot 34:6-7 (see also Eitz Chaim 13:9 and LM I, 27:3, note 12). This connection is intimated ,זקָָן) by the resemblance between the words ZaKaN elder). In the kabbalistic ,זקֵָן) beard) and ZaKeiN lexicon, Arikh Anpin is the “Elder,” whose defining quality is great compassion.) Thus Yosef received from Yaakov all the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy, the concept of zakein, through which the great tzaddik shows compassion for everyone and brings them all closer to HaShem.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he had been born to him in his old age. If you were to argue that Binyamin had been born when he was still older, Binyamin caused his father to be reminded of the fact that his very existence brought about his beloved wife Rachel’s death, something which prevented him from loving him as much.

פסים, a name that was to be given to this garment retroactively after Joseph had been sold. [Each letter of the word refers to a different master to whom Joseph had been sold, commencing with מ for the Midianites and ending with פ for Potiphar.] A different explanation sees in the word פסים as a “compensation,” for being a half orphan, not having a mother anymore. Yaakov tried to compensate him by having a costly garment made for him.

Jacob loved Joseph more than all his sons because he was the son of his old age. It is possible that Jacob (peace be upon him) sought to rectify through Joseph what Adam did, as our Sages (may their memory be blessed) interpreted, and after all the trouble, Leah misled him, and he thought she was Rachel. When it was morning, and behold, it was Leah, just as it says in the verse: "And it came to pass in the morning, behold, it was Leah." This caused great distress to Jacob because after completing the rectification, a prohibition of illicit relations came upon him. Perhaps he lost all that he had rectified.Therefore, with Rachel, who had a problem, as mentioned by Rabbi Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe Zatzal, "God made that she gave birth to Joseph," who is a soul of Adam's World to come, to inform Jacob (peace be upon him) that he did not commit a prohibition. Everything he did was a complete rectification. This fruit born in Joseph represents the soul of Adam's World to come to complete the rectification. Joseph embodies the aspect of Foundation (Yesod).This is the reason Jacob (peace be upon him) loved Joseph, as it is a great testimony regarding Joseph, as God already desired his actions. This is indicated by "And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons," with the numerical value of "son of his old age" being equivalent to "Adam with everything." He made for him a coat of many colors, which is the light of the clothing of Adam. As Rabbi Karban Shabbat explains, the numerical value of "son of his old age" is the letters Aleph, Mem, Nun, Yud, which hint at the unique designation, Kav and Vav. It also hints that the numerical value is 90, as Joseph was born when Jacob was 91, according to the hint mentioned as our Sages explained. It is written, "And Jacob settled," and afterwards, it says, "And Israel loved Joseph." It is possible that Joseph was in the place of David, who is the chariot. When he touched the hollow of his thigh, he was called Israel, as a hint that David was the chariot. When he comes in his place, Joseph, and for this reason, "And Israel loved Joseph." Alternatively, Joseph was in the place of David, and the hint is that David was the chariot, and when he comes in his place, Joseph, and that is why it says, "And Israel loved Joseph." Alternatively, as our Sages said, Joseph is called El, and if so, it is permitted to have two sisters. According to this, "And Israel loved Joseph." Otherwise, as Rabbi Shaul says, "And Israel loved Joseph," means that he called him El, and if so, it is permissible to have two sisters. According to this, "And Israel loved Joseph," as Rachel, who is hinted at by Israel, is permitted, and therefore, he loved Joseph more than all his sons.

כתונת פסים, “an embroidered garment;” extending down to the palms of his hands.

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. This is to be taken literally since Joseph was born to Jacob when the latter was ninety-one years old. (Joseph was 30 when Pharaoh appointed him vizier over Egypt. Jacob came to Egypt nine years later, after the seven years of plenty and two of famine (Gen. 45:11). At that time Jacob was 130 years old (Ibid., 47:9) and Joseph 39. Thus Jacob was 91 years older than Joseph (Cherez). I.E. notes that ben zekunim is to be taken literally, viz., son of old age, because the Midrash and Onkelos interpret it to mean a wise son. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 84:8 and Rashi.) Also, Benjamin, his brother, is referred to by Scripture as a child of his (That is, Jacob’s.) old age (Gen. 44:20). After Joseph and Benjamin no other children were born to Jacob. (Hence these two are referred to as children of his old age (Krinsky).)

A COAT OF MANY COLORS. Ketonet passim means an embroidered coat. (Vat. Ebr. 38 reads: a coat made of embroidered parts. Some texts omit embroidered coat. According to I.E. passim means parts. The coat was made up of embroidered parts (strips) each of which was of a different color (Filwarg). For an alternate interpretation see Cherez.)

[MANY COLORS.] The word passim (many colors) is similar to the Aramaic word pas (part) in part of (pas) a hand (Dan. 5:5).

Or “a coat of many colors”; meaning of Heb. uncertain.

A long colorful cloak. The other brothers were dressed like shepherds, but because Yoseif was his father’s attendant he was required to dress in a dignified manner.

וישראל אהב את יוסף, Israel loved Joseph, etc. The Torah reported this here in order to provide the rationale for the brothers' hatred of their younger, i.e. their "little" brother Joseph. The reason the verse begins with the conjunctive letter ו in front of ישראל is to inform us that if the tale-bearing would have been the only problem, the brothers could have coped with that; they would have argued with Joseph and convinced him that his suspicions were unfounded. It was the additional element of their father displaying distinct favoritism which poisoned the atmosphere between Joseph and his brothers. Not only did Jacob love Joseph better than all his other sons combined, but he even made a public display of this. Once this hatred of Joseph had become a factor in their mutual relations nothing could correct the situation. There was no longer any point in the brothers speaking peacefully, i.e. trying to make peace with the tale-bearer, seeing he was so clearly their father's favorite.

וישראל אהב את יוסף, “and Israel loved Joseph, etc.” You will observe that the Torah uses the names Yaakov and Israel interchangeably. In the first verse it calls him Yaakov; in the verse at the end of this passage where Yaakov rends his garments having concluded that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, it again calls him Yaakov, whereas in our verse here he is called Israel. This proves that the name Israel which G’d had bestowed upon him was not meant to supplant the name he had been given at birth but was to serve as an alternate name for him.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “he made for him a striped coat.” This was a superior garment.. It may have resembled the כתונת תשבץ worn by the High Priest (Exodus 28,4). The brothers were envious of Joseph on account of this garment. This envy aroused by Yaakov making this garment for Joseph caused our sages (Shabbat 10) to go on record that a father should be careful not to discriminate between his children. This coat was the first of the various causes which produced the tragedy described by the Torah and whose ramifications ultimately resulted in the enslavement of the bodies of the Jewish people in Egypt. It had still later ramifications in the time of the Romans after the destruction of the second Temple when ten of the most illustrious scholars of that time died a martyr’s death at the hands of the Romans whose Emperor justified himself quoting the penalty of kidnapping provided in the Torah. He argued that the brothers had never been punished for selling their brother. The body is perceived as the outer garment of the soul. The kind of garment one wears is somehow related to the body underneath it just as the body is related to the soul within it. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,6 the expression פסים (plural) is used because these stripes were as wide as two פסות ידיו, two handbreadths. Another interpretation of the word פסים: the word is derived from פייס, lot; the brothers drew lots amongst themselves to decide which of the four methods of death the Torah provides to administer to Joseph. This is based on the wording of ויתנכלו להמיתו, “they planned (how) to kill him” (verse 37,18). Alternately, they drew lots who was to bring the news about the torn coat to their father Yaakov. The lot fell on Yehudah and this is why Yehudah said to Yaakov הכר נא ”please identify if this is the coat of your son.” The expression הכר נא is found again with Tamar, Yehudah’s daughter-in-law, who said to Yehudah concerning the pawn he had given her הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify to whom this signet ring belongs, etc.” (38,25) When Yehudah said to Yaakov: “identify if this is the coat of your son,” Yaakov’s life ended suddenly, and the lives of Yehudah’s sons Er and Onan came to an end at that same moment. [I believe that this Midrash considers the “revival” of Yaakov as having taken place when he heard that Joseph was alive, 45,24, and that the lives of Er and Onan were vicariously revived in the twin sons which Tamar bore for Yehudah 38,28. Ed.] This is the mystical dimension of Jeremiah 32,18 ומשלם עון אבות אל חיק בניהם אחריהם, “but You visit the guilt of the fathers to their children after them.” Still another possible meaning of the word פסים. The word is reminiscent of the four kinds of troubles which befell Joseph as a result of this coat. The letters in the word are an acrostic for the words פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים.. All the above owned Joseph at one time or another from the moment the brothers sold him. A more mystical meaning of the word פסים: Yaakov revealed the mystical connections between the 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet to Joseph. In other words, Yaakov “enrobed” his son Joseph with the wisdom contained in the twenty-two letters of the alphabet which he himself had learned at the time he had studied in the academies of Shem and Ever.

כי בן זקונים, what was so special about Joseph’s age, seeing all the eleven brothers had been born in the space of 7 years? How much older was Yaakov at the time Joseph was born than, say, at the time Yehudah was born? We conclude therefore, that the meaning of the word זקונים has nothing to do with physical age, but that Joseph appeared to him as especially intelligent, wise, wise well beyond his years. The words of wisdom spoken by Joseph would normally be expected only from the mouth of men who had acquired such wisdom through having lived for many years. This is also the way Onkelos understood the term when he translates it as בר חכים, “a wise son.” Seeing that he considered him so wise he dressed him in especially attractive garments. In this way he gave tangible expression to his special love for him.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, the word פס is related to the same word in Daniel 5,5 פס ידא, palm of a hand. The cloth was made of differently coloured surfaces similar to garments made of soft wool which are made in a number of differently coloured stripes or sections. The garment looked very impressive, arousing the hatred of the brothers in addition to the fact that they hated him for spreading tales about them to their father. Our sages in Shabbat 10 seize upon this detail to teach us that a father must ever be careful not to arouse inter-fraternal jealousies, seeing that the fortunes of the Jewish people have been so negatively affected on account of five silver coins worth of angora wool which Yaakov spent more on Joseph’s attire than he did on the garments worn by his other sons. The enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt was brought about as a direct consequence of this jealousy.

BECAUSE HE WAS THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE. That is, he was born to him during his old age. Onkelos translated: “he was a wise son to him,” for all that he had learned from Shem and Eber (The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned.) he transmitted to him. Another interpretation is that the facial features of Joseph were similar to those of Jacob. This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra also explains it in this way: “Because he was the son of old age — for he begot him in his old age when he was ninety-one (For when Jacob stood before Pharaoh at the end of two of the lean years he was one hundred and thirty years old (47:9). Now when Joseph stood before Pharaoh he was thirty years old. Therefore after the seven years of plenty, and the two lean years he was thirty-nine. Subtract his age from Jacob’s age and there remain ninety-one years. This was Jacob’s age when Joseph was born. (Ohel Yoseph.)) years old. They likewise called his brother Benjamin a little child of his old age. “ (Further, 44:20.) But in my opinion this is not correct for the verse states that Jacob loved Joseph more than all his children because he was the son of his old age, whereas all his children were born to him during his old age! Issachar and Zebulun were not more than a year or two (See Seder Olam Rabbah, 2.) older than Joseph. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that it was the custom of the elders to take one of their younger sons to be with them to attend them. He would constantly lean on his arm, never being separated from him, and he would be called ben z’kunav because he attended him in his old age. Now Jacob took Joseph for this purpose, and he was with him constantly. He therefore did not accompany the flock when they went to pasture in distant places. And Onkelos who translated, “he was a wise son,” intended to say that in his father’s eyes, Joseph was a knowledgeable and wise son, and his understanding was as that of elders. (See the interpretation of Ramban on Leviticus 19:32.) However in the case of Benjamin, who is called yeled z’kunim (a little child of his old age), Onkelos translated: bar savtin (Rather than bar chakim, as in the case of Joseph.) (a son of old age). [The explanation of Onkelos in the case of Joseph becomes clear] because the verse here does not state, “Joseph hayah (was) a son of old age;” instead, it says, hu lo (he was unto him), meaning that in his eyes he appeared to be [a ben z’kunim, and consequently it must mean bar chakim, a wise son]. (For if the sense of the verse is to be understood literally as meaning that “he was a son of his old age,” why specify “to Jacob?” Hence Onkelos correctly translated it as bar chakim, which means that Joseph was a wise son in his father’s estimate.) This is the intent of the Sages when they said: (In the Rashi quoted above. The original source is Bereshith Rabbah 84:8.) “Whatever Jacob had learned from Shem and Eber (The traditional masters who taught Torah to Jacob during the fourteen years he hid from Esau (Megillah 17 a). This source, however, mentions only Eber. See Bereshith Rabbah 84:8, where Shem is also mentioned.) he transmitted to him,” meaning that he passed on to him wisdoms and the secrets of the Torah, and that the father found the son to be intelligent and profound in these areas as if he were an elder and a man of many years.

וישראל אהב, all of the aforementioned details caused the brothers to become jealous of Joseph.

בן זקונים, he was the most recently born of 11 children. There had been a considerable interval before Binyamin, the last of Yaakov’s children was born. Yaakov’s inordinate love for Joseph developed long before Binyamin was born.

כתונת פסים, a cloak, (compare Samuel II 13,18 Tamar’s cloak).

בן זקנים THE SON OF HIS OLD AGE — because he was a wise son to him” — all that he had learnt from Shem and Eber he taught him (Genesis Rabbah 84:8). Another explanation of בן זקנים— his facial features were similar to his (Jacob’s) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

פסים is a term for raiment of fine wool (Shabbat 10b). Similar is (Ester 1:6) כרפס “Fine linen and blue”. The same garment כתנת הפסים is mentioned (2 Samuel 13:18) in the story of Amnon and Tamar and we may therefore gather that it was made of very fine material. There is a Midrashic statement that in the word פסים we may find an allusion to all his misfortunes: he was sold to Potiphar (פוטיפר), to the merchants (סוחרים), to the Ishmaelites (ישמעאלים), and to the Midianites (מדינים) (Genesis Rabbah 84:8).

Trotz der vorerwähnten Schwächen steckte ein ganz herrlicher Mensch in Josef. Nicht Jakob, „Jisrael“ sah in ihm den vorzüglichsten seiner Söhne, בן זקונים הוא לו, er sah sich in ihm fortlebend, in ihm den Fortträger aller seiner geistigen Errungenschaften (siehe Kap. 21, 7). — פסים von פסס: aufhören, enden, scheint die Verbrämung der Säume eines Gewandes zu bedeuten, die allen Gewändern gegeben werden, welche die Persönlichkeit mehr hervortreten lassen sollen. Heißt doch vielleicht עדה, die allgemeine Bezeichnung von Schmücken, ebenso wie פסס, zugleich aufhören, wovon: עד, bis. Jedenfalls war es eine Auszeichnung, die ihn als einen zu einer besonderen Bestimmung Auserwählten erscheinen ließ. — Daß alles dies nicht vernünftig war, Jakob seine Reden nicht hätte aufnehmen sollen, wie überhaupt ein "Lieblingskind" in der Geschichte unserer Väter und eines jeden Hauses nur verderbliche Folgen hat, das ist durch die herben Folgen, die alles dies in der Geschichte nach sich zog, bitter genug hervorgehoben. Es sind dies Schwächen, die sich so leicht im Leben der Menschen wiederholen, aber immerhin Schwächen.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, as a visible sign that Joseph was intended by him to become the leader of all the brothers both at home and in the field. The use of such distinctive clothing to symbolise someone’s elevated stature is found also in Isaiah 22,21 והלבשתיו כתנתך, “I will dress him (Chilkiyah) in your tunic,” where it signals that authority is transferred to the one wearing the appropriate garments. (uniform). The Talmud Baba Kama 11 also confirms that authority is signalled by the attire worn by people possessing it. [there the brothers who had paid extra for their leader to represent them and to appear well dressed are quite content seeing that their representative while attired in costly garments will indirectly confer benefits upon them through their brother being listened to in the councils of the city. Ed.]

Because he was born to him in his old age... You might ask: Was not Binyamin born in an older age than Yoseif? The answer is: all of Yaakov’s sons were born one right after another, as they were all born within six years — except for Binyamin, whose birth was separated [from Yoseif’s birth] by a long period of time. People had thought that Yaakov would not beget another son from Rochel, so they called Yoseif “son of old age.” And out of habit they continued to do so even after Binyamin was born.

Onkelos translates it: “He was a wise son to him.” [Rashi cites Onkelos] because there is a question on the first explanation: What difference does it make [to us] whether Yoseif was born to Yaakov in his old age or his youth? Thus Rashi says, “Onkelos translates it...” But a question still remains: It should have said בן זקנותו. Why does it say בן זקונים? Perforce, it comes to say: “His facial features (זיו איקונים)...” (Maharshal)

A Midrashic explanation is for his misfortunes ... [Rashi cites this] because there is a question on the first explanation: For what purpose does Scripture say that Yaakov made him a כתונת פסים? Perhaps to teach, [as it says in Shabbos 10b,] that a person should not treat one son differently than the others, since Yoseif’s brothers were jealous of him because his coat was worth two sela’im more. But this is not the simple meaning of the verse, as it is not written, “His brothers saw that he made him a כתונת פסים.” Rather, they were jealous of him due to his dreams and words (v. 8). Therefore Rashi cites the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

That he was sold to Potiphar, traders... I.e., פסים is the abbreviation for פוטיפר, סוחרים, ישמעאלים, מדינים. According to this explanation, the [prefix] ו is lacking from the word סוחרים in (37:28): וַיַּrַבְרוּ אֲנָשִׁים מִדְיָנִים סֹחֲרִים. It should be understood as וסוחרים (and merchants), [for otherwise it would mean, “Midianite merchants,” and one group would be missing]. Although Scripture omits Yoseif’s sale to the merchants, it also omits his sale to the Midianites, [which surely took place, as they sold him to Potiphar — see v. 36. This understanding of סוחרים fits the verse well,] because otherwise, why is the word סוחרים even needed?

Israel, Jacob, loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age [ ben zekunim ]. Although Benjamin was even younger than Joseph, and also a son of Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel, his personality was less prominent. Jacob favored Joseph due to his outstanding personality, which becomes apparent in the continuation of the narrative. In fact, Onkelos translates ben zekunim as a wise son. Additionally, Joseph resembled Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel, who had recently died. The verse describes Joseph as being “of fine form, and of fair appearance,” just like his mother (29:17, 39:6). Indeed, Joseph is the only male to be described in such terms by the Torah. Perhaps Joseph’s facial features reminded Jacob of Rachel. It is also easy to imagine that Joseph was preferred over Jacob’s older children because of their problematic behavior: Reuven defiled the family, and Simeon and Levi’s actions in Shekhem were met with Jacob’s disapproval. He, Jacob, made him a fine tunic, a special garment that was distinct from the clothing of the other brothers.

כי בן זקונים הוא לו, “for he was born to him when he was advanced in years;” according to Rashi. Nachmanides questions Rashi’s interpretation of the term בן זקונים, reminding us that all of Yaakov’s children were born to him when he was advanced in years, seeing that he only married when he was already 84 years old. Issachar and Zevulun were no more than a year or two older than Joseph. Moreover, Binyamin was much younger (seven years), than Joseph, and the term בן זקונים should have been applied to him, instead. Nachmanides therefore concludes that the Torah refers to an ancient custom of fathers who were already aged selecting one of their sons to attend to their needs on a regular basis. That son then becomes known as בן זקונים. Seeing that Joseph had been selected to perform these filial duties, he no longer went with his brothers to tend the flocks when they went far away from Chevron. We may also understand Onkelos in this sense, when he translates בן זקונים as ארי בר חכים, as extraordinarily intelligent. It is interesting that the Torah applies the term בן זקונים for Joseph only in his relationship to his father, i.e. בן זקונים הוא לו, for him,” not when compared to the world around him.

ועשה לו כתונת פסים, “and he made for him a striped coat of many colours.” This verse teaches us how important it is for a parent not to have favourites among his children, [not to display such favoritism. Ed.] The extra cost of Joseph’s tunic, a measly 2 shekel, triggered a history of tragic jealousy, strife, near fratricide, etc. It even ultimately was directly responsible for Jews going to Egypt for a second time in history to seek relief from a famine in the land of Canaan.

“Israel loved Joseph best of all his sons” [37:3]. Toldot Yizhak writes. The custom in the houses of the nobility is that they love those who spread gossip. Therefore, the verse says that concerning Jacob that even though Joseph gossiped, yet he did not love Joseph because of the gossip, but because “he was the child of his old age” [37:3]. He was learned in the Torah and that is why he loved him. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:2–3.)

“He made him an ornamented tunic” [37:3]. He made him a silk shirt, and all of his troubles came from this shirt. Our sages learn from here that one should not give one child better clothes than the others, so that they should not come into conflict, as happened with Joseph. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:3.) The word “pasim” alludes to his troubles. The “peh” is Potiphar to whom Joseph was sold. The “samech” is merchants. The “yud” is Ishmaelites. The “mem” is Midianites. Joseph was sold to all of them. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:3.)

“Israel loved Joseph” [37:3]. Jacob loved Joseph very much, more than the other brothers. Hizkuni writes here. All of the brothers hated Joseph. First, the children of Leah hated Joseph because Jacob loved him more than the other children. The children of Bilhah and Zilpah hated Joseph because he spoke ill about the children of Leah. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.) Rashi and Bahya write. “This is the line of Jacob” [37:2]. Why does the verse hang the line of Jacob on Joseph? The explanation is that everything that Jacob served and worked in the house of Laban was because of Rachel and Joseph was the son of Rachel. Joseph looked like Jacob. Also, all the attributes of the brothers were in Joseph. The birthright of Reuben was given to Joseph. The kingship of Judah was also in Joseph, since Joseph was a king in Egypt. The prophecy of Levi was also in Joseph. He prophesied to Pharaoh about how a hunger would come to Egypt. Joseph also had the wisdom of Issachar, as it is written concerning Joseph, “there is none is discerning and wise as you” [Genesis, 41:39]. This means, there is nobody wiser than you. Also, everything that happened to Jacob also happened to Joseph. Just like the brothers wanted to kill Joseph, so too, Esau wanted to kill Jacob. Just like the mother of Jacob was barren so too the mother of Joseph. Just like Jacob was born circumcised so too was Joseph. Just like the mother of Jacob had a difficult delivery so too did the mother of Joseph. Just like the mother of Jacob had only two children so too that of Joseph. Just like angels came to Jacob so too to Joseph. Just like good attributes came to Jacob through a dream, so too to Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:2; Bahya, Genesis, 37:2.) Ramban asks a question about Rashi. If Joseph had spoken against the children of Leah about how badly and lowly they held the children of the maidservants and had denigrated them, why did the children of the maidservants agree to kill him and to sell him? Dan Naphtali, Gad and Asher were the four children of the maidservants. Reuben, the oldest one, also did not agree to sell Joseph. Thus, there were five and Joseph himself was the sixth. They could have overcome the other brothers not to sell Joseph. The explanation is that Joseph had spoken ill of the children of the maidservants. Therefore, they also hated him. The children of Leah hated Joseph because Jacob loved Joseph more than all the other brothers. (Ramban, Genesis, 37:1.) So also write Bahya and Hizkuni. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:2; Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:2.)

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

Another interpretation (of Cant. 8:6): FOR LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH. Love is what Jacob had for Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH. (Cant. 8:6, cont.:) JEALOUSY IS AS SEVERE AS SHEOL. Thus his (Joseph's) brothers were jealous of him. So what is LOVE doing beside JEALOUSY (in the same verse)? And what caused Joseph to come into the hands of jealousy? < It was > because of the love with which his father loved him to excess.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 39:1): WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT. There were three natures within him. < He was > a Torah scholar, a prophet, and one who nourished his brothers. < He was > a Torah scholar, for it is so written (in Gen. 37:3): BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE (ZEN). (ZQN here is interpreted in the Talmud as an abbreviation (notarikon) for Zeh Sheqanah Hokhmah, which means, “This is the one who has acquired wisdom.” See Qid. 32b. See also Targum Onqelos, Gen. 37:3: BECAUSE HE WAS A WISE SON TO HIM.) It is also written (in Deut. 32:7): ASK YOUR FATHER, AND HE WILL INFORM YOU; [YOUR ELDERS (rt.: ZQN), AND THEY WILL TELL YOU]. And where is it shown that he was prophet? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:2): SINCE HE WAS A YOUTH WITH THE CHILDREN OF BILHAH…. It is also written (in Exod. 33:11): HIS ATTENDANT, JOSHUA BIN NUN, A YOUTH. Again it is written (in I Sam. 2:21): AND THE YOUTH SAMUEL GREW UP. (Since prophets like Joshua and Samuel are called youths, the designation must mean that Joseph also was a prophet.) And where is it shown that he fed his brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 50:21): SO NOW, FEAR NOT; I WILL NOURISH YOU….

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. < The interpretation is > that Jacob's face was like Joseph's. (As Rashi informs us (ad loc.), the midrash needs to explain why Jacob’s generations are being ascribed to Joseph. Cf. Gen. R. 84:6, which argues that one should expect any discussion of Jacob’s children to begin with Reuben.) Where is it shown? Where it says so (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH [MORE THAN ALL HIS SONS BECAUSE HE WAS THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. But look, Benjamin was younger than < Joseph >; yet it says: < Joseph was > THE CHILD OF HIS OLD AGE. It is simply that he had features (Gk.: eikonion.) which resembled him. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH]. Just as Jacob raised up tribes; so did Joseph raise up tribes. It is so stated (in Gen. 48:5): EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH SHALL BE MINE LIKE REUBEN AND SIMEON. Ergo (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And they brought the tabernacle unto Moses (Exod. 39:32). It is written elsewhere in reference to the verse: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous; but with kings upon the throne He setteth them forever, and they are exalted (Job 36:7). What does this verse signify? That the Holy One, blessed be He, does not deny the righteous man the realization of his plans. Therefore He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous. You may know this to be so from Abraham, who begot Isaac, who resembled him closely, as it is said: These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son: Abraham begot Isaac (Gen. 25:19). And Jacob begot Joseph, who resembled him, as is said: These are the generation of Jacob: Joseph (ibid. 37:2). Reuben, Simeon, et al., are not mentioned here but only Joseph. It says also: Because he was the son of his old age (ibid., v. 3). (Word-play on zikunim (“old age”) and kunim (“features”).) Hence, He draweth not His eyes from the righteous.

Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age (Gen. 37:3). The “son of his features” (ikunim, playing on zikunim, “old age”), for he resembled his father very closely. R. Ishmael said: He was called the son of his old age because Joseph sustained his father and his brethren (ibid. 47:12). That is, he fulfilled a son’s obligation to his aged father. Because Joseph foresaw in his dream that he was destined to rule, and related this fact to his father, his brothers were incensed at him.

Another interpretation: Who will ascend? This refers to our father Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 35:1), "Arise, go up to Bethel and dwell there." Who will stand? This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 28:11), "And he encountered the place." Clean of hands. This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 31:38), "I worked for you for fourteen years." And with a pure heart. This refers to Jacob, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), "For he was the son of his old age." "Who did not lift up my soul in vain." This refers to Laban. And he did not swear to deceive, as it is said (Genesis 31:53), "And Jacob swore by the fear of his father Isaac." He will receive a blessing from the Lord, as it is said (Genesis 35:9-10), "And God appeared to Jacob and blessed him."

Rabbi Ishmael said: Every son of the old age || is beloved of his father, as it is said, "Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age" (Gen. 37:3). Was he then the son of his old age? Was not Benjamin the son of his old age? But owing to the fact that (Jacob) saw by his prophetic power that (Joseph) would rule in the future, therefore he loved him more than all his sons. And they envied him with a great envy, as it is said, "And his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren; and they hated him" (ibid. 4). Further, because he saw in his dream that in the future he would rule, and he told his father, and they envied him yet more and more, as it is said, "And they hated him yet the more" (ibid. 8). Moreover, he saw the sons of his father's concubines eating the flesh of the roes and the flesh of the sheep whilst they were alive, and he brought a reproach against them before Jacob their father, so that they could not see his face any more (in peace), as it is said, "And they could not speak peaceably unto him" (ibid. 4). Jacob said to Joseph: Joseph, my son ! Verily I have (waited) many days without hearing of the welfare of thy brethren, and of the welfare of the flock, as it is said, "Go now, see whether it be well with thy brethren, and well with the flock" (ibid. 14). And the lad was wandering in the field, and the angel Gabriel met him, as it is said, "And a certain man found him, and, behold, he was wandering in the field" (ibid. 15). (The word) "man" (here in this context) is Gabriel only, as it is said, "The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision" (Dan. 9:21).

Another matter: “Behind your braid your hair is like a flock of goats that streams down [shegaleshu] from Mount Gilad” (Song of Songs 4:1) – the mountain from whose midst you took away [shegelashtem], I rendered a memorial for the nations of the world. Which is this? This is the Temple, as it is stated: “You are awesome, God, from Your Temple” (Psalms 68:36). From where does awe emerge? Is it not from the Temple? This is what it says: “You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 26:2) – as it is sanctified in its destruction just as it was sanctified while it was built. The matters can be inferred a fortiori: If to His Temple the Holy One blessed be He did not show favor, when He will come to exact punishment upon its destroyers all the more so. What is it that you took away from its midst? “Your teeth are like a flock of ordered ewes” (Song of Songs 4:2) – defined matters, these are the vestments of the High Priesthood, as we learned there: (Yoma 71b) The High Priest serves in eight vestments and the common [priest] in four: tunic, trousers, mitre, and sash. The High Priest adds beyond these the breastplate, ephod, robe, and the sacred frontplate. The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: “They dipped the tunic in blood” (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (This verse refers to the tunic that Jacob made for Joseph. According to one opinion, it contained wool and linen (see Bereshit Rabba 84:8). At the very least, its stripes could be reminiscent of different types of materials. The midrash takes this as an allusion to the fact that the tunic of the High Priest atones for the transgression of diverse kinds.) The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). For what did the sash atone? For those with criminal thoughts. (Apparently text should be added here such that this sentence reads: For thieves, and some say for criminal thoughts (see Vayikra Rabba 10:6).) The reason for the one who says for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their actions clandestinely. (There was space inside the sash, like a secret hiding place.) According to the one who says it was for criminal thoughts, Rabbi Levi said: It was thirty-two cubits long, and he would twist it to this side and that. (He would wrap it all the way around himself multiple times, representing the twisted thoughts of those with criminal and dishonest intent.) The breastplate would atone for those who distort justice, just as it says: “You shall place in the breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod would atone for idol worshippers, just as it says: “No ephod and no terafim” (Hosea 3:4). (Terafim are household idols.) The robe would atone for evil speech. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yonatan of Beit Guvrin: There are two items for which there was no atonement (No offering designated to atone for it.) but the Torah designated atonement for them, and these are: Evil speech and one who murders unwittingly. There was no atonement for evil speech, but the Torah designated atonement for it: the bell of the robe, as it is stated: “It shall be upon Aaron to serve, and its sound shall be heard…” (Exodus 28:35). Let the sound come and atone for the sound of evil speech. There was no atonement for one who murders unwittingly, but the Torah designated atonement for it, this is the death of the High Priest, as it stated: “He shall dwell in it until the death of the High Priest” (Numbers 35:25). The frontplate would atone for the impudent, and there is one who says for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, just as it says: “On Aaron’s forehead [metzaḥ]” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “Yet you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot…” (Jeremiah 3:3). According to the one who says for the blasphemers, “it shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “the stone penetrated his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49). (The stone shot by David penetrated the forehead of Goliath, who had blasphemed God.) It is written: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49). Why is it that “he fell on his face”? (The force of the stone to his forehead should have caused him to fall backward.) Rather, initially you learn: “His height was six cubits and one span” (I Samuel 17:4) – so that this righteous one will not be inconvenienced to walk his entire height, therefore, it is written: “He fell on his face to the ground.” (Divine providence had Goliath fall forward so that David would not have to walk too far in order to cut off his head.) Rabbi Huna said: It is because Dagon his god was engraved on his heart, to fulfill what is stated: “I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). Another matter: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49) – Rabbi said: So that the disgusting mouth that cursed and blasphemed would be hidden [in the ground], like that which is stated: “Hide them in the dust together” (Job 40:13). Alternatively, “he fell on his face to the ground” – so that this righteous one would not have a troubled mind. (He would be certain that Goliath no longer posed a danger even though he was not yet dead.) Alternatively, “he fell on his face” – so that this righteous one would come and step on [the back of] his neck, to fulfill what is stated: “You will trample their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29). “That have come up from bathing” (Song of Songs 4:2) – they atone for Israel. “That are all paired” (Song of Songs 4:2) – these are the two braided chains of gold that emerge from the midst of the breastplate and appeared from its midst like two tassels. “And there is none missing among them” (Song of Songs 4:2) – that not one of them was tattered. “Your lips are like a scarlet thread” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the sacred crown. (This is a reference to the blue threads that passed over the head of the High Priest and fastened the frontlet to his forehead.) “Your speech is lovely” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the frontplate. Rabbi Yonatan was ascending to pray in Jerusalem. When he reached a certain Pelatinus, (This is a reference to Mount Gerizim, which the Cuthites and Samaritans considered sacred.) a certain Cuthite encountered him. He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Where are you going?’ [Rabbi Yonatan]said to him: ‘To pray in Jerusalem.’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Would it not be preferable for you to ascend and pray on this blessed mountain and not pray in those ruins [in Jerusalem]?’ [Rabbi Yonatan] said to him: ‘Why is this mountain blessed?’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Because it was not flooded with the Flood waters.’ That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not flooded with the Flood waters. An answer slipped the mind of Rabbi Yonatan at that moment and he did not respond to him. His donkey driver said to him: ‘Rabbi, allow me, and I will respond to him.’ He said to him: ‘Respond to him.’ He said to that Cuthite: ‘This mountain, what do you consider it? If it is one of the high mountains, is it not written: “All the high mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:19)? If it is one of the low mountains, it is written: “Fifteen cubits upward the waters intensified, and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:20). The verse did not address the low mountains. If regarding the high mountains it is written: “All the mountains were covered,” all the more so regarding the low ones.’ At that moment the Cuthite fell silent and was unable to find a response. At that moment, Rabbi Yonatan dismounted and drove his donkey driver three mil, and he read in his regard three verses: “You will be the most blessed of all the peoples; there will be no male or female infertile among you or among your animals” (Deuteronomy 7:14), even among those of you who work with animals; and this: “Any weapon crafted against you will not succeed…” (Isaiah 54:17); and this: “your temple is like a pomegranate slice [rakatekh]” (Song of Songs 4:3) – even the empty [reikan] among Israel is packed with answers like a pomegranate. “Behind your braid [letzamatekh]” – and it goes without saying regarding the modest and the fervent [metzumatin] among you.

“For love is as intense as death” – the love that the Holy One blessed be He has for you is as intense as death. That is what is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord…” (Malachi 1:2). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – when they infuriate the Holy One blessed be He with their idol worship, as it is stated: “They would infuriate Him with strange gods” (Deuteronomy 32:16). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Isaac had for Esau; that is what is written: “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy Esau had for Jacob, as it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob [because of the blessing with which his father blessed him]” (Genesis 27:41). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jacob had for Joseph, as it is stated: “Israel loved Joseph more than his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that his brothers had for him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jonathan had for David, as it is stated: “Jonathan loved him as himself” (I Samuel 18:1). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that Saul had for David, as it is stated: “Saul eyed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that a man has for his wife, as it is stated: “Enjoy life with a woman whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that he has regarding her when he says to her: Do not speak with so-and-so, and she goes and speaks with him, and immediately, “a spirit of jealousy passes over him and he is jealous of his wife” (Numbers 5:14). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that the generation of persecution had for the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – as the Holy One blessed be He is destined to have great zealotry on behalf of Zion. That is what is written: “So said the Lord [of hosts]: I became zealous for Zion with great zealotry” (Zechariah 8:2). “Its sparks are the sparks of fire, a great conflagration” – Rabbi Berekhya said: Like the supernal fire; the fire does not quench water and the water does not extinguish fire.

“And the vestments,” Rabbi Simon says: Just as the offerings atone, so do the vestments atone, as it is taught: The High Priest serves in eight vestments, and the common priest in four: In a tunic, trousers, a mitre, and a belt. The High Priest adds upon his: A breastplate, an ephod, a robe, and a frontlet. (Mishna Yoma 7:5. ) The tunic is to atone for those wearing diverse kinds, (This refers to the prohibition of wearing a garment made from wool and linen. ) just as it says: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (Some say that Joseph’s tunic was linen adorned with wool. The priest’s tunic is just linen to atone for those who adorn their linen with wool.) The trousers are to atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it says: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre is to atone for haughtiness, just as it says: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). The belt, there is one who says [it atones] for the crookedness of the heart, and there is one who says [it atones] for the thieves. Rabbi Levi said: The belt was thirty-two cubits and he would wind it crookedly before him and behind him, according to the one who said for the crookedness [akmanin] of the heart. (The thirty-two cubits are because the numerical value of the word lev, heart, is thirty-two. ) According to the one who said for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their deeds clandestinely. The breastplate atones for those who subvert justice, just as it says: “The breastplate of justice” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod is to atone for idolaters, as it is stated: “No ephod or household idols” (Hosea 3:4). The robe, Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Natan: There are two matters for which there is no atonement, but the Torah provided atonement for them, (There is no sacrificial offering that provides atonement, but the Torah provides another means of atonement (Maharzu, based on Arakhin 16a). ) and these are: Evil speech and an unwitting murderer. Evil speech has no atonement but the Torah provided atonement for it. With what will it be atoned? With the bells on the robe. That is what is written: “A golden bell and a pomegranate, a golden bell and a pomegranate” (Exodus 28:34). “It shall be on Aaron to serve and its sound shall be heard” (Exodus 28:35). [God] said: Let the sound come and atone for the sound. The unwitting murderer has no atonement but the Torah provided atonement for him. With what will he be atoned? With the death of the High Priest. That is what is written: “After the death of the High Priest, [the murderer shall return to the land of his ancestral holding]” (Numbers 35:28). The frontlet, there is one who says [it provides atonement] for the impudent and there is one who says [it provides atonement] for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, it is from the daughters of Zion. Here it is written: “It shall be on the forehead [metzaḥ] of Aaron” (Exodus 28:38), and there it is written: “But you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot” (Jeremiah 3:3). The one who said for the blasphemers, it is from Goliath. (The verse says of Goliath: “He has blasphemed the armies of the living God” (I Samuel 17:26).) Here it is written: “It shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and there it is written: “It struck the Philistine on his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49).

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

(Bereshith 37:3): "And Israel loved Joseph more than all of his sons, for he was the son of his old age.": Scripture hereby apprises us that Jacob did not accept the lashon hara that Joseph brought to him, and loved him only because he was the son of his old age.

ויעש לו כתונת פסים . The Talmud in Shabbat 10b tells us that one must not treat any of one's children differently, since, on account of the extra two silver-coins-worth of money spent on Joseph's colored coat his brothers became jealous of him and this in turn led to the exile in Egypt.

One answer is that Yosef was a highly intelligent person, as Onkelos and Rashi (to Bereishit 37:3) point out. He therefore realized that it was unusual for an Ishmaelite caravan to be carrying sweet-smelling spices. Add in the fact that caravans tend to be terribly malodorous because they are filled with sweaty men and animals traveling through a scorching desert, and having a good smell in such circumstances becomes not just rare but almost unheard of.

VIRGINITY. The word betulim (virginity) is a plural. It never comes in the singular. The same applies to bacharut (youth), zekunim (old age), alumim (youth).

IN HER VIRGINITY. There are nouns in Hebrew that never come in the singular. Compare, ne’urim (youth), zekunim (old age), alumim (youth), and betulim (virginity). There are other words which never come in the plural, i.e., taf (children), shekhem (shoulder), zahav (gold), and barzel (iron).

Nowhere is this set out more clearly than in the story of Joseph in this parasha. It begins on a high note: “Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age, and he made a richly embroidered robe” (Gen. 37:3). But with dramatic speed, that love and that gift turn out to be Joseph’s undoing. His brothers began hating him. When he told them his dream, they hated him even more. His second dream offended even his father. Later, when he went to see his brothers tending their flocks, they first plotted to kill him, and eventually sold him as a slave.

Perhaps the Torah actually wanted to pinpoint 47 years of Jacob's life as the ones during which he experienced what we are in the habit of calling happiness. This is based on the interpretation of the verse in Genesis 37,3 that וישראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו. According to the Zohar both Jacob's love for Rachel his true mate and Joseph is lumped together in this verse as indicated by the extra word את. As long as Joseph had not been born Jacob dressed in sackcloth [a figure of speech denoting he had not yet begun to experience what he perceived to be his true destiny. Ed.] When computing the number of years Jacob was married to Rachel and the 17 years prior to Joseph's disappearance, one must consider that some of these years overlapped as Rachel was alive until the birth of Benjamin 6 years after the birth of Joseph. Jacob was married to Rachel for 13 years during his stay at Laban. He experienced 11 years in the company of Joseph before the latter was sold making a total of 24 years. When you add to this the 17 years he lived in Egypt you get a total of 41 years of happiness in Jacob's adult life. When you add the first 6 years of Jacob's childhood, years that are not yet clouded by the various problems we experience in life, we have a total of 47 years of Jacob's life during which he could be considered as having lived a "normal" life. The Torah may have wanted to draw our attention to this fact and therefore it mentions these 47 years before mentioning the numerically bigger number, i.e. the 100 years.

לכבוד ולתפארת, “for glory and splendor.” According to the plain meaning of these words the meaning is that the wearers of these garments will be honored and glorified by them. Seeing that in the eyes of even the distinguished individuals among the people the High Priest is considered like an angel of the Lord as far as his performing the sacrificial service is concerned, the Torah now commanded that his external appearance be comparable to that image which these people have of him by dressing him in garments reflecting his lofty assignment. The garments he was to wear were typical of Royal garments as we know from a number of verses in which these garments are associated with Royalty. Compare Samuel II 13,18: “she (David’s daughter the princess Tamar) was wearing an ornamented tunic מעיל, for maiden princesses were customarily dressed in such garments.” The word כתונת תשבץ is reminiscent of the garment Yaakov had made for his favorite son Joseph which the Torah described as a כתונת פסים, The מצנפת is also known to us as a headgear worn by rulers such as in the Arab countries even in our own days.

AND THOU SHALT MAKE HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON THY BROTHER FOR SPLENDOR AND BEAUTY — this means that he be distinguished and glorified with garments of distinction and beauty, just as Scripture says, as a bridegroom putteth on a priestly diadem. (Isaiah 61:10.) For these garments [of the High Priest] correspond in their forms to garments of royalty, which monarchs wore at the time when the Torah was given. Thus we find with reference to the tunic, and he made him a tunic of ‘pasim’ (Genesis 37:3.) — meaning, a cloth woven of variegated colors, this being the tunic of chequer work [mentioned here], just as [Ibn Ezra] explained, which clothed him as a son of ancient kings. (Isaiah 19:11.) The same applies to the robe and the tunic, as it is written, Now she [Tamar] had a garment of many colors upon her; for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled, (II Samuel 13:18.) which means that a garment of many colors was seen clearly upon her, for such was the custom that the virgin daughters of the king wore robes with which they wrapped themselves; thus the coat of many colors was upon her as an upper garment. It is for this reason that it says there, and she rent her garment of many colors that was on her. (Ibid., Verse 19.) The mitre [mentioned here] is to this day known among kings and distinguished lords. Therefore Scripture says with reference to the fall of the kingdom [of Judah], The mitre shall be removed, and the crown taken off. (Ezekiel 21:31.) Similarly it is written, and a royal diadem. (Isaiah 62:3.) Scripture also calls them the ornamented high caps, (Further, 39:28.) and it is further written, They shall have linen ornamented [caps] upon their heads, (Ezekiel 44:18.) which are for the beauty and glory of those that are adorned with them. The ephod and the breastplate are also royal garments, just as it is written, and thou shalt have a chain of gold about thy neck. (Daniel 5:16.) The plate [around the forehead, which the High Priest wore], is like a king’s crown. Thus it is written, ‘yatzitz nizro’ (his crown will shine). (Psalms 132:18. — Ramban thus associates the word tzitz (plate) with the expression yatzitz nizro (his crown will shine), thus suggesting that the tzitz of the High Priest is a sort of royal crown.) Furthermore, [the High Priest’s garments] are made of gold, blue-purple, and red-purple (Further, Verse 5.) [which are all symbolic of royalty]. Thus it is written, All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace; her raiment is of chequer work inwrought with gold, (Psalms 45:14.) and it is further written, thou shalt be clothed with purple, and have a chain of gold about thy neck. (Daniel 5:16.) As for the blue-purple, even to this day no man will lift up his hand (Genesis 41:44.) to wear it except a king of nations, (See Isaiah 14:9.) and it is written, And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a ‘tachrich’ (robe) of fine linen and purple (Esther 8:15.) — the tachrich being a robe in which the wearer wraps himself. By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala,] majesty is to kavod (glory) and to tiphereth (splendor), (Cabalistic terms for certain Emanations.) the verse thus stating that they should make holy garments for Aaron to minister in them to the Glory of G-d Who dwells in their midst, and to the Splendor of their strength, as it is written, For Thou art the Glory of their strength, (Psalms 89:18.) and it is further stated, Our holy and our beautiful house, where our fathers praised Thee, (Isaiah 64:10.) meaning [“the house of] our Holy One” which is the Glory, and “of our Splendor” which is the Splendor of Israel. And it is further stated, Strength and beauty are in His Sanctuary, (Psalms 96:6.) and similarly, To beautify the place of My Sanctuary, and I will make the place of My feet glorious (Isaiah 60:13.) — meaning, that the place of the Sanctuary will be glorified by the Splendor, and the place of His feet, which is the place of the Sanctuary, will be honored by the presence of the Glory of G-d. And in Israel will He glorify Himself (Ibid., 44:23.) also means that in Israel He will show and designate His Splendor. Likewise He says further with respect to the garments of all of Aaron’s sons, that they are for splendor and for beauty. (Further, Verse 40.) Of the sacrifices He also says, they will come up with ‘ratzon’ (‘will’ — acceptance) on Mine altar, and I will glorify My glorious house. (Isaiah 60:7.) Thus the altar is His Will and the house of His Glory is the Splendor. The [priestly] garments had to be made with the intention to be used for that purpose. It is possible that in making them, intent of heart [for what they symbolize] was also needed on the part of their makers. It is for this reason that He said, And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise-hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom (Verse 3.) — who will understand what they will do. And the Rabbis have already said [of Alexander the Great, that when asked by his generals why he descended from his chariot to bow before the High Priest Simon the Just, he answered]: (Yoma 69a. The story told there is that when Alexander the Great conquered the Land of Israel the Samaritans petitioned him to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem. Thereupon a procession of notables went out from Jerusalem headed by Simon the Just, the High Priest, who was attired in the high priestly garments. They walked a whole night with torches in their hand until dawn. In the morning as soon as Alexander saw Simon the Just, he descended from his chariot and bowed down to him. When the Samaritans said to him, “Such a great king as thou art dost thou bow thyself to that Jew?” He replied, “His image etc.”) “His image glistened before me whenever I had a victory.”

And the pride of Israel was humbled before Him Heb. וְעָנָה. And the glory of Israel was humbled and they saw; an expression of humility, and this is not a future tense but a past tense. Comp. (Isa. 6: 3) “And one called (וְקָרָא) to the other.” I heard that one called to the other. Also (Gen. 37:3) “and he made (וְעָשָׂה) for him a woolen shirt.” This too is a past tense. They have already been diminished and humbled, and, despite this, they did not return to the Lord.

As the story of Jacob’s children unfolds, there is a rapid rise of tension among his children that threatens to spill over into violence. Joseph, eleventh of the twelve, is Jacob’s favourite son. He was, says the Torah, the child of Jacob’s old age. More significantly, he was the first child of Jacob’s beloved wife Rachel. Jacob “loved him more” than his other sons (Gen. 37:3), and they knew it and resented it. They were jealous of their father’s love. They were provoked by Joseph’s dreams of greatness. The sight of the multi-coloured robe Jacob had given him as a token of his love provoked them to anger.

The sequence of events leading to the murder of Amnon is telling. In a move that suggests elements of the opening of the Yosef story in Genesis, a father sends his son into a situation of certain conflict (note too Amnon’s “Have everyone go out from me” in v.9, recalling the moment before Yosef reveals himself to his brothers in Gen. 45:1, and the mention of Tamar’s “ornamented tunic,” a phrase used to describe Yosef’s famous article of clothing in Gen. 37:3). The fact that the king at first believes the rumor that all of his sons have been murdered (vv.30-31) is perhaps indicative of a suddenly fragile state of mind. The first part of God’s recent statement of punishment for David’s crimes, “So-now— / the sword shall not depart from your house for the ages” (12:10), has received its first fulfillment.

In his focus on ĥen, on relationship and connection, Joseph played a unique role within Am Yisrael. He was the liminal figure, connecting the age of the Patriarchs to the birth of Israel as a nation. Joseph was the only one of the sons of Jacob who was also considered an av, or patriarch-prototype. This leitmotif was repeated throughout Joseph’s story. Jacob blessed him as the even Yisrael (rock of Israel), and Onkelos parsed the phrase to imply qualities of both “av” and “ben.” Although he was followed years later by a younger brother, Benjamin, Joseph was considered Jacob’s ben zekunim – not “son of old age,” but “repository of accumulated wisdom,” (BR 84:8; Onkelos, Genesis 37:3.) Jacob’s extension to the next generation. Joseph was called “avrekh” by the Egyptians, understood by Rashi to be a composite word meaning “av” (father) in wisdom, despite being “rakh” (young). (Rashi, Genesis 41:43.) Joseph indeed referred to himself as a “father” to Pharaoh (Genesis 45:8.) – this in contrast to the numerous references to his na’arut (youth). Joseph, the child of ĥen, was the connecting point: he was both an av and a ben, spanning both eras, closing the book of Fathers (Genesis) and opening the book of the Sons (Exodus). Joseph alone was entrusted with passing on the secret formula “pakod yifkod etkhem,” the signal for movement away from the past and toward the future redemption. (ShR 3:11; Ramban, Exodus 3:18.)

Twelve years had passed since Joseph’s birth, (Seder Olam 2.) and since Jacob emerged shalem, (Genesis 33:18.) complete, from the dangers of Laban and Esau. His house was built; he was named Israel by God. (Genesis 35:10.) The birth of Joseph marked a critical juncture for Jacob. Joseph was his ben zekunim, (Genesis 37:3.) the beloved child of his old age, (R. Saadiya Gaon, Rashi, Ramban, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra on Genesis 37:3.) who seemed to round out the patriarch’s household. (“These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph was seventeen years old… ” Genesis 37:2.) And yet, Jacob was not done, and his house was not truly complete, for Rachel had not yet given everything that she could to Beit Yisrael. Upon the birth of Joseph, she recognized instantly that this must not be her final act – that “God should grant me another son” (yosif Hashem li ben aĥer), and even named Joseph in that hope. Only with Benjamin, who resembled her more purely than did Joseph, was the family of Israel to be whole.

[220] For we are told that he had a coat of varied colours (Gen. 37:3). He did not besprinkle himself with lustral rites, from which he would have learned that he was an amalgam of ashes and water, and was incapable of touching the all-white and gleaming vestment, which is virtue, but arrayed himself in the woven robe of statecraft, a robe richly variegated, containing but a most meagre admixture of truth, but many large portions of false, probable, plausible, conjectural matter, out of which sprang up all the sophists of Egypt, augurs, ventriloquists, soothsayers, proficients in decoying, charming, and bewitching, whose insidious artifices it is no easy task to escape.

[6] It is evident from these words that they are in the plain, caring for the irrational powers within them. And, because he is unable to bear the too great severity of his father’s knowledge, Joseph is sent to them, that in the hands of more lenient instructors he may learn what he ought to do and what will be beneficial; for the creed he has hitherto followed is one woven of incongruous elements, multifarious and complex in the highest degree. This is why the lawgiver says that a coat of many colours was made for him (Gen. 37:3), indicating by this that he is the promulgator of a doctrine full of mazes and hard to disentangle.

And Rava bar Meḥasseya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: A person should never distinguish one of his sons from among the other sons by giving him preferential treatment. As, due to the weight of two sela of fine wool [meilat] that Jacob gave to Joseph, beyond what he gave the rest of his sons, in making him the striped coat, his brothers became jealous of him and the matter unfolded and our forefathers descended to Egypt.

She was wearing an ornamented tunic, (See Gen. 37.3 and note.) for maiden princesses were customarily dressed (Meaning of Heb. uncertain. Emendation yields “(thus) in olden times,” me‘olam.) in such garments.-c—His attendant took her outside and barred the door after her.

Yisrael loved Yoseif more than any of his sons, for he was a [wise] son of his old age to him, and he made him a long, colorful cloak.

A figured robe.

And Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because the likeness of Joseph resembled his own, and he made him a figured robe.

8. Know, too, that there is a difference between the peace of fasting of the weekdays, and the peace of the delight of Shabbat. That is, the peace of fasting lacks the aspect of speech, [in] the aspect of “they could not speak a word of peace [to him]” (Genesis 37:4). But by means of the delight of Shabbat eating, speech is executed in peace, in the aspect of “For the sake of my kin and my companions, I will now speak peace” (Psalms 122:8). This is the aspect of “or speaking of [weekday] matters” (Isaiah 58:13), which is said with regard to Shabbat, because the mouth is made whole through the great light [that shines] at the time of Shabbat eating.

The pasuk does not mention that the brothers' hatred for Yosef was due to the bad reports he brought to their father. It only states, “And they saw that Yosef was loved by their father, and they could not speak to him in peace” (Bereishis 37:4). It seems the Torah mentions the bad reports as the cause for Yosef's descent to Egypt. Had Yosef stayed and continued reporting negatively, the brothers would have been completely pushed away. The explanation is that a true Tzadik presents the good deeds of Bnei Yisrael to Hashem. Yosef had not yet reached this level of perfection until after his trial with Potiphar’s wife, when he was then called Yosef the Tzadik and only presented their good deeds. Therefore, once the brothers came to Egypt, they lived in harmony with their father. The sin of selling Yosef is attributed to the brothers because if they had been more righteous, Yosef’s reports wouldn't have affected them. Consequently, there would have been no need for Yosef to go down to Egypt. Thus, they were the cause of the descent to Egypt.

When Yehuda confronts Yosef, he states, "בי אדוני" ("Please, my master"), which can also mean "in me." The Midrash likens Yehuda to the plower and Yosef to the reaper. While the reaper holds a higher status as the one who completes the process, Yehuda ultimately rises to Yosef's level. This is illustrated by the verse in Zechariah 6:12: "from beneath him, it will grow," suggesting that those below empower those above, with Yehuda symbolizing the lower level. This concept extends to the universe, where the forefathers are above the 12 tribes, who are above the rest of the world. Yosef embodies all the forefathers, while Yehuda represents their descendants. The "קול" (voice) signifies Yaakov, Yosef is the "הבל" (breath necessary for sound), and Yehuda is the "דיבור" (words, or actual leadership). Before these elements were refined, they couldn't achieve their purpose. The verse "before Yosef was sold" (Genesis 37:4) implies they couldn't speak peacefully, indicating they hadn't reached completion. Now, Yehuda's "בי אדוני" signifies that mastery lies within him, in the power of his diligent work at the lower levels.

“You shall tell my father all my glory in Mitzrayim and all that you have seen” (Bereishit 45:13). Initially, the brothers were afraid of Yosef (Bereishit 45:3), but now they saw his light and his encompassing trait called “כל,” symbolizing connection. They realized that Yosef was indeed a tzadik. Previously, they could not speak to him peacefully (Bereishit 37:4) because they could not follow his leadership. Now, when Yosef said, “For you see that it is my mouth that speaks to you,” they accepted his leadership, recognizing the path he opened as essential for preparing for the ultimate redemption. They now understood and appreciated Yosef's role, acknowledging that the exile had begun. Thus, the pasuk states, “and afterwards his brothers spoke to him,” indicating their acceptance and alignment with his leadership.

SPEAK UNTO HIM. Dabbero is to be rendered speak unto him. (Dabbero is the verb dabber (speak) plus the pronoun oto (him). However, they cannot be combined since one cannot say speak him. Hence I.E.’s comment that dabbero should be interpreted dabber lo (speak to him) (Filwarg). Cherez suggests that what I.E. means is that dabbero is not a combination of dabber oto but dabber immo (speak with him). See notes to Gen. 34:14.)

[PEACEABLY.] Even peaceably. (They did not speak to him concerning things about which they agreed (Weiser) or they did not even say how are you, to him (Filwarg).)

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they could not speak about him peacefully.” This was actually a positive aspect of their characters. Instead of hiding their hostility and flattering Joseph, they were straightforward in revealing their feelings toward him (Bereshit Rabbah. 84,9). We find this characteristic praised by Solomon in Proverbs 29,5 where he said: גבר מחליק על רעהו רשת פורש על פעמיו, “a man who flatters his neighbour actually spreads a net for his feet.” The prophet actually compliments Avshalom when he said (Samuel II 13,22) ולא דבר אבשלום עם אמנון למרע ועד טוב כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון. “and Avshalom did not speak to Amnon either friendly or unfriendly words for Avshalom hated Amnon (who had raped his sister).”

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, any conversation with Joseph did not revolve around peacefully discussed matters of common interest, but concerned only matters of dispute between them.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY TO HIM — from what is stated to their discredit we may infer something to their credit: they did not speak one thing with their mouth having another thing quite different in their hearts (Genesis Rabbah 84:9).

דברו means TO SPEAK TO HIM.

Die Konstruktion hebt das אותו hervor. Gerade ihn, der eben nicht zu ihnen gehörte, in keiner freundlichen Beziehung zu ihnen stand, ihnen manchen Vorwurf zuzog usw. gerade ihn, sahen sie, zog der Vater vor. — הב(ה) ,אהב mit individualisierendem א: sich dem andern ganz hingeben und den andern in seine nächste Nähe wünschen. Demgegenüber סנה) שנא): Dorn sein, von sich weisen, möglichst fern halten. Die Extreme erzeugten sich gegenseitig. Die Liebe des Vaters erzeugte den Hass der Brüder. — ׳ולא יכלו וגו, sie konnten mit ihm nicht zum Frieden sprechen, d. h. in einer Weise, die den Frieden erzeugt, oder: sie konnten sein "zum Frieden sprechen" nicht ertragen, konnten es nicht ertragen, wenn er freundlich mit ihnen sprach. Befreundete nehmen sich nichts, Gespannte alles übel und missdeuten das Freundliche am meisten.

ויראו אחיו כי אותו אהב אביהם, here Yaakov had committed an error, allowing the love in his heart for Joseph to be now become visible through preferential treatment of him.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, even though the brothers had to speak to Joseph pertaining to their business dealings both concerning household problems and problems with the herds and flocks, something imposed upon them by their father’s command to see in him their manager, they did not speak to him concerning any private matters, brotherly concerns.

His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers. Jacob’s preference for Joseph was conspicuous, whether through the way he related to Joseph or from the special tunic that he made for him. And they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him. They were incapable of maintaining any sort of peaceful dialogue with Joseph. They avoided all conversation with him and distanced themselves from him as much as possible.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום, “and they were unable to converse with him or about him, peacefully.” You will note that the Torah did not write that the brothers did not speak to him, but whenever they spoke, even to strangers, and Joseph became part of their conversation, they referred to him negatively.

“His brothers saw that their father loved him” [37:4]. Joseph’s brothers hated him because Jacob loved him. Toldot Yizhak asks a question. Is it just that they should hate him because Jacob loved him? Why is Joseph guilty that he was loved? The explanation is that the brothers said: if our father would not believe the evil things that Joseph says about us, then it would not bother us. One could consider him a fool. However, our father still loves Joseph, even after his evil talk. He must hate us because of the evil talk. Therefore, the verse says that the brothers saw that Jacob loved Joseph and that is why they hated him. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:4.)

“They could not speak a friendly word to him” [37:4]. The brothers could not speak with Joseph. Rashi writes. The verse tells us that the brothers were righteous. As soon as they became angry with Joseph, they could no longer speak with him. There are many evil people who hate someone very much in their heart and speak with him with their mouth. However, Joseph’s brothers did not do this. They were the same in their heart and with their mouth. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:4.)

A man and his household, his partner, and his children, went down to Egypt. And only Dinah was isolated, without a husband and without children. And her brothers could not speak to her in peace [alluding to Genesis 37:4]. They did not speak with her in her youth. Hence, And Dinah went out to see the daughters of the land (Genesis 34:1).

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

“His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers” – Rabbi Ahava bar Ze’eira said: From the defamation of the tribes you learn their praise. Elsewhere: “Avshalom did not speak to Amnon, either good or bad” (II Samuel 13:22) – what was in his heart remained in his heart; however, here: “And could not speak peaceably to him” – what was in their heart was in their mouth.

Another interpretation (of Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. This text is related (to Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Israel is saying to the Holy One: IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER. Like which brother? (Tanh., Exod. 1:27; Exod. R. 5:1; PRK 16:5; PR 29/30A:6; 29/30B:1.) You find that from the beginning of the creation of the world until now brothers have hated each other. Cain hated Abel and killed him, as stated (in Gen. 4:8): CAIN AROSE AGAINST HIS BROTHER ABEL AND MURDERED HIM. Ishmael hated Isaac (rt.: TsHQ), as stated (in Gen. 21:9): WHEN SARAH SAW THE SON WHOM HAGAR THE EGYPTIAN HAD BORNE TO ABRAHAM PLAYING (rt.: TsHQ). Now PLAYING can only mean that he desired to kill him, as stated (in II Sam. 2:14): PLEASE LET THE YOUNG MEN ARISE AND PLAY BEFORE US. (The result of their “playing” was that they all killed each other. See above, Gen. 6:5; below, Numb. 6:8; 10:9.) Esau also hated Jacob, as stated (in Gen. 27:41): AND ESAU SAID IN HIS HEART: . Moreover, the tribes hated Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:4): THEY HATED HIM. So like which brother? Israel said: Like Moses and Aaron, as stated (in Ps. 133:1): SEE HOW GOOD AND HOW PLEASANT IT IS , since they loved each other and cherished each other. Thus when Moses received the kingship and Aaron < received > the high priesthood, they were not jealous of each other. Rather they were happy in each other's greatness. (See below, Lev. 3:5.) You know yourself it to be so. You find that, when the Holy One said to Moses (in Exod. 3:10): SO COME NOW, I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH…, Moses said to him (in Exod. 4:13): PLEASE MAKE < SOMEONE ELSE YOUR AGENT>. Do you imagine that Moses may have delayed in order not to go? He only acted out of respect for Aaron. Moses said: Before I arose, Aaron had been prophesying to them for eighty years. He of whom it is stated (in Ezek. 20:5): I MADE MYSELF KNOWN TO THEM IN THE LAND OF EGYPT. And where is it shown that Aaron prophesied to them? Where it is stated (in I Sam. 2:27–28): NOW A MAN OF GOD CAME UNTO ELI AND SAID UNTO HIM: THUS SAYS THE LORD: I SURELY REVEALED MYSELF {TO} [UNTO] YOUR FATHER'S HOUSE IN EGYPT, WHEN THEY BELONGED TO PHARAOH'S HOUSE; AND I CHOSE HIM FROM ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL TO BE MY PRIEST. (The midrash seems to ignore the fact that what the Holy One says here is introduced by an interrogative particle.) He said to him: All these years Aaron has prophesied to them. So am I now to go to them in my brother's domain so that he will be upset? For that reason Moses did not desire to go. The Holy One said to him: Your brother Aaron will not be upset over this matter. Rather he will be happy. You yourself know that he is going out for a meeting (Gk.: apante, apantesis.) with you. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:14): SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART: not in his mouth alone but in his heart, his heart more than his mouth. WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. R. Simeon ben Johay said: The heart that was happy at his brother's greatness shall put on Urim and Thummim, as stated (in Exod. 28:30): AND INSIDE THE BREAST PLATE OF JUDGMENT YOU SHALL PUT THE URIM AND THUMMIM SO THAT THEY SHALL BE UPON AARON'S HEART. Ergo (In Exod. 4:14): AND ALSO SEE, HE IS SETTING OUT TO MEET YOU; AND WHEN HE SEES YOU, HE WILL BE HAPPY IN HIS HEART. When had said this to him, took it upon himself to go. Immediately the Holy One revealed himself to Aaron. He said to him: Go out to meet your brother Moses so that he may know that you are happy over the matter. It is therefore stated (in Exod. 4:27): GO INTO THE DESERT TO MEET MOSES. Ergo (in Cant. 8:1): IF ONLY YOU COULD BE TO ME LIKE A BROTHER, like Moses and Aaron who loved each other. (Ibid., cont.:) IF I MET YOU OUTSIDE, I WOULD KISS YOU. (Exod. 4:27:) SO HE WENT TO MEET HIM ON THE MOUNTAIN OF GOD AND KISSED HIM.

(Gen. 37:4:) BUT WHEN HIS BROTHERS SAW THAT THEIR FATHER LOVED HIM MORE THAN ANY OF HIS BROTHERS, < THEY HATED HIM SO THAT THEY COULD NOT SPEAK PEACEABLY (shalom) TO HIM >. When he came to ask how they were (shalom), they would not answer him. Why? Because it was his custom to ask how they were. You have the < kind of > person who, before coming to power, [asks people how they are. But, after coming to power], his spirit hardens over him, and he is no longer careful to ask the people of the city how they are. Joseph, however, was not like that. Although he had come to power (in Egypt), it was < still > his custom to ask his brothers how they were. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 43:27): AND HE ASKED THEM HOW THEY WERE. The Holy One said to him: Joseph, you began asking how your brothers were in this world; and they hated you. In the world to come, however, I am pardoning you, removing hate from between you, making you dwell in safety, and making peace between you. So also has David said (in Ps. 133:1): SEE HOW GOOD AND HOW PLEASANT IT IS FOR BROTHERS TO DWELL TOGETHER.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Another comment upon the verse And the Lord said to Aaron: “Go into the wilderness to meet Moses” (Exod. 4:27). Scripture says elsewhere in reference to this verse: O that thou wert as my brother (Song 8:1). The Israelites said to the Holy One, blessed be He:, O that thou wert as my brother, yet you find that all brothers hated each other. Cain hated Abel, as it is said: And Cain rose up against Abel his brother (Gen. 4:8). Ishmael hated Isaac, as is said: And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport (Gen. 21:9). Making sport implies, in this instance, that he wanted to kill him, as it is said: Let the young men, I pray thee, arise and make sport before us (II Sam. 2:14). Esau hated Jacob, as is said: And Esau said in his heart, etc. (Gen. 27:41). And the tribes hated Joseph, as it is said: And they hated him (Gen. 37:4). But in this instance the Israelites asked of the Holy One, blessed be He: Do you mean like Moses and Aaron, of whom it is said: Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity (Ps. 133:1)? They loved and cherished each other. At the time that Moses took the kingship and Aaron the priesthood, they bore no resentment toward each other. In fact, they rejoiced in each other’s exalted role.

Similarly, Scripture states with reference to Joseph: And when his brethren saw that his father loved him … they hated him (Gen. 37:4). It was because of the cloak of many colors he had made for him out of (royal) purple wool. Four misfortunes are mentioned as befalling him. They are indicated by the letters of the word passim (“cloak”). The peh alludes to his sale to Potiphar; the samekh to his sale to the merchants (sohrim); the yod to his sale to the Ishmaelites (yishma’elim); and the mem to his sale to the Midianites. Because of the cloak of many colors, all the tribes were compelled to descend to Egypt. R. Yudan declared: The Holy One, blessed be He, desired to fulfill the decree Ye shall surely know that thy seed shall be a stranger (Gen. 15:13), but He resorted to subterfuge in every instance to accomplish it. He made Jacob love Joseph, so that his brothers hated him, and as a result they sold him to the Ishmaelites, who brought him to Egypt. When Jacob heard that Joseph was alive in Egypt, he descended there with his descendants. Later they were enslaved there. Though it says: And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, the word should not be read as hurad (“brought down”) but as horid (“he caused”) his father and the tribes to descend to Egypt.

Another thing, I call to You, O Lord, to you I raise my voice. As the scripture says (Proverbs 16:19), "Better to be lowly in spirit along with the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud." Blessed is the person who takes care of the oppressed and behaves humbly. Woe to the person who takes care of the wicked, for they take what is theirs and depart from the world, as it says (Psalms 37:10), "A little while, and the wicked will be no more." The Lord said that in one hour, the wicked eat what is theirs in this world and then descend to hell, along with their helpers and anyone who participates with them. Thus it is written (Jeremiah 49:10), "For I have sworn by Myself, saith the Lord, that Bozrah shall become a desolation, a reproach, a waste, and a curse; and all the cities thereof shall be perpetual wastes." David said, "I will not eat at their table, nor will I sit with them."

Another message to David, I call to You, O Lord, my rock, do not be deaf to me. Do not drag me away with the wicked. Rabbi Abba bar Zerayya said from the gardens of the tribes, You know their praise. It is written (Genesis 37:4), "And they hated him and could not speak peaceably unto him." What was in their heart was on their lips. But further on (2 Samuel 13:22), "But Absalom spake unto Amnon neither good nor bad." What was in their heart was not on their lips. For they do not understand the actions of the Lord. Hezekiah said, "These are the times." Rabbi Yehoshua said, "These are the stories." And the Rabbis said, "This is the recitation of the Shema that we read, 'who creates light and makes darkness, who forms mountains and creates the wind, who brings forth bread from the earth.' Just as God created the two great lights (Genesis 1:16), He will destroy them in this world and will not rebuild them in the world to come."...

“The Lord said to Aaron: Go toward Moses to the wilderness. He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him” (Exodus 4:27). “The Lord said to Aaron: Go toward Moses to the wilderness” – that is what is written: “If only you were as my brother [who nursed from the breasts of my mother; I would find you outside, I would kiss you]” (Song of Songs 8:1). Regarding which brother is the verse speaking? If you say it is regarding Cain, but is it not written: “Cain rose against his brother Abel and killed him”? If you say it is like Ishmael to Isaac, did we not learn: Ishmael hates Isaac? If you say it is like Esau to Jacob, is it not written: “Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41)? If you say it is like Joseph’s brothers, but is it not written: “They hated him” (Genesis 37:4), and it is written: “His brothers envied him” (Genesis 37:11). Rather, it is like Joseph to Benjamin, “who nursed from the breasts of my mother” (Song of Songs 8:1), (Joseph and Benjamin were from the same mother, Rachel, whereas their other brothers were not sons of Rachel. ) [and] like Moses to Aaron, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him.” Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said: All kisses are indecent except for three: The kiss of greatness, the kiss of separation, and the kiss of reunion. The kiss of greatness, as it is stated: “Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him” (I Samuel 10:1); the kiss of separation: “Orpa kissed her mother-in-law” (Ruth 1:14); the kiss of reunion, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God and he kissed him.” Some say: Even a kiss of closeness is not disgraceful, as it is stated: “Jacob kissed Rachel” (Genesis 29:11), who was his relative. Rabbi Pinḥas said: There was an incident involving a brother and a sister, one of whom was in Gush Ḥalav and one of whom was in Beit Maron. The house in Gush Ḥalav caught fire. His sister came from Beit Maron and fell upon him and was hugging him and kissing him. She said: ‘I am not accustomed to come to you [and to kiss you], but I was afraid, as you are my brother and were in distress, and you emerged from it.’ “I would find you outside, I would kiss you” (Song of Songs 8:1) – where outside? It is in the wilderness, where the brothers, Moses and Aaron, kissed each other.

The Torah next exhorts us not to bottle up our hatred against a fellow jew in our heart (19,17), but to tell him openly if we wish to criticize his conduct, i.e. הוכח תוכיח. Proverbs 27,5 provides the rationale, namely that a rebuke reveals loving concern for the person so rebuked. This is a virtue as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,4 that Joseph's brothers, rather than concealing their dislike of Joseph and flattering him, spoke out about it. One must not contrast this with the statement of our sages who condemned Naval for saying what was in his heart. They even changed the reading of the name of his ancestor from נבל to כלבו so as to emphasize that every evil thing in his heart he expressed with his lips (Samuel 25, Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2,3). His was a special case; he should not have spoken at all instead of using his power of speech only to denigrate others. Joseph's brothers, on the other hand, had to maintain relations with him. Rather than pretend to like him they chose to say what was on their minds.

ולא יכלו דברו לשלום . Rashi comments that we can learn the praiseworthy character traits of the brothers from the very criticism the Torah directs at them. The brothers were no hypocrites, fawning on Joseph to his face and cursing him behind his back. They were candid and frank. We have a parallel to this frankness in Samuel I 25,3, where Naval is described. Our sages say that he was just as evil as is implied by his very name [hardly a name given to him by his father at birth. Ed.], i.e. he did not bother to conceal his עין הרע, ill-will. The difference between Naval and the brothers was that whereas Naval was offensive to everybody, the brothers refrained from speaking to Joseph altogether. They did not want to be guilty of hypocrisy by speaking to him peacefully, hiding what was in their hearts; they also did not want to be guilty of hateful behavior towards him.

Now Israel loved Joseph more than any of his other sons, because he had been born to him in his old age, and he made a richly ornamented robe for him. When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him [velo yakhlu dabro leshalom, literally, “they could not speak with him to peace”]. (Gen. 37:3–4)

On this, Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz (c. 1690–1764) comments: “Had they been able to sit together as a group, they would have spoken to one another and remonstrated with each other, and would eventually have made their peace with one another.” (Tiferet Yehonatan, Commentary to Genesis 37:4.)

When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of his brothers, they hated him and could not speak a peaceful word to him. (Gen. 37:4)

The law as such is straightforward. What makes it remarkable is that it reads as if it were directed against a specific biblical figure, namely Jacob. One connection is linguistic. The key terms in our law are an opposition between ahuva, “loved,” and senua, “hated/unloved.” This opposition occurs ten times in the Torah. Three have to do with the relationship between us and God: “Those who hate Me and those who love Me.” That leaves seven other cases. Four are in the paragraph above. The other three are all about Jacob: two of them about his love for Rachel in preference to Leah (Gen. 29:30–31, 32–33), the third about his love for Joseph in preference to the other sons (Gen. 37:4). Both caused great grief within the family and had devastating consequences in the long run.

דַּכְּאוׂ To bruise him. It is in form similar to דַּבְּרוׂ, to speak with him (Gen. 37:4). It is Piel.

For he chews his cud. Why does the Torah always begin with their sign of purity first? The explanation is because their pure sign adds extra impurity to their impurity, as we find that Chazal compared Esov to a pig that sticks out its hoofs when it lies down to make it appear as if it is kosher, but its innards are full of deceit. This represents anyone whose inside is not like his outside, in the manner of the hypocrites … Therefore, the pig’s split hoof is a sign of impurity because the split hoof can deceive people and make it appear as if it is kosher.

תמלאמו means SHALL BE FILLED WITH THEM (not it shall fill them). נפשי MY SOUL — my spirit, my desire. Do not be puzzled at a word, that expresses an idea usually expressed by two, viz., תמלאמו for תִּמָּלֵא מֵהֶם, for there are many examples of this way of speaking; e. g., (Judges 1:15) “the south country נְתַתָּנִי”, which is the same as נָתַתָּ לִי, “thou hast given to me”; (Genesis 37:4) “And they were not able דַּבְּרוֹ peaceably”, which is the same as דַּבֵּר עִמּוֹ “to speak with him”; (Jeremiah 10:20) “My children יְצָאוּנִי which is the same as יָצְאוּ מִמֶּנִי “have gone away from me”; (Job. 31:37) “the number of my steps אַגִידֶנּוּ which is the same as אַגִּיד לוֹ “I would declare unto him”. Similarly here: תמלאמו means תִּמָּלֵא נַפְשִׁי מֵהֶם “my soul shall be filled with them”.

I will be sated over you with my tears Heb. אַרְיָוֶךְ, I will be sated over you. There are some words that serve as two words. Comp. (Jer. 10:20) “My children went out of me (יְצֵאוּנִי)”; (Jos. 15:19) “A dry land you have given to me (נְתַתָּנִי)”; (Gen. 37:4) “To speak to him (דַּבְּרוֹ) peacefully.”

and let us tell about him and let us testify against him. And Menahem (Machbereth p. 53) explained ונגידֶנוּ like (Deut. 14:1) “You shall not cut yourselves (לא תתגודדוּ).” He also joined (Job 17:5) “For the sake of flattering, he destroys (יגיד) his friends.” This is an expression of destruction. Comp. (Dan. 4:11) “Cut down (גֹדוּ) the trees.” But Dunash (Teshuvoth p. 54) interpreted it as an actual expression of telling, and this is its interpretation: “Tell false things about him and we will tell about him to the king.” And we have like נַגִידֶנוּ, we will tell about him, many words in the Scriptures that cannot be interpreted unless they are divided into two words or three. Comp. (Gen. 37: 4) “And they could not speak with him (דַבְּרוֹ) peacefully.” Also (supra 10:20), “My children have left me (יצאני).”

You have given me. The word נְתַתָּנִי is the same as נָתַתָּ לִי, as in: (the preposition לִי is missing and seems to be like a direct object. Rashi will offer similar examples of this structure.) They could not speak speak to him peacefully. (See Bereishis 37:4. There too the word דַבְּרוֹ is the same as דַבֵּר אֵלָיו, speak to him.) ‘My children have gone away from me.’ (See Yismiyahu 10:20. There too the word יְצָאְנִי is the same as יָצְאוּ מִמֶנִי.) ‘He cooked for them.’ (See I Melachim 19:21. There too the word בִשְׁלָם is the same as בִשֵׁל לָהֶם.)

I would walk with them, as (Gen. 37:4): “And they could not speak with him in peace,” [equivalent to] לדבר עמו בשלום.

THINKING MORE DEEPLY The law is straightforward. What makes it remarkable is that it reads as if it were directed against a specific biblical figure, namely Yaakov. One connection is linguistic. The key terms used in our law are an opposition between ahuva, “loved,” and senua, “hated/unloved.” This opposition occurs ten times in the Torah. Three have to do with the relationship between us and God: “Those who hate Me and those who love Me.” That leaves seven other cases. Four are in the paragraph above. The other three are all about Yaakov: two of them about his love for Raḥel in preference to Leah (Bereshit 29:30–31, 32–33), the third about his love for Yosef in preference to the other sons (Bereshit 37:4). Both caused great grief within the family and had devastating consequences in the long run.

“When his brothers saw that their father loved him [Yosef] more than any of his brothers, they hated him and could not speak a peaceful word to him” (Bereshit 37:4).

His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him. They could not [were not willing to] speak to him peaceably.

And his brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, and they cherished enmity against him, and were unwilling to speak peacefully with him.

ויחלום יוסף חלום ויגד לאחיו, “Joseph dreamt a dream and he told his brothers its content.” This was a dream that never came true. This is why the Torah does not reveal its content.

ויחלום יוסף חלום. Joseph had a dream. Why did Joseph add to his brothers' hatred of him by telling them of his grandiose dreams? Furthermore, knowing as he did that the brothers hated him fiercely, why did he accept his father's mission (verse 14) and venture "into the lion's den?" (According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,11 even Jacob could not understand Joseph's preparedness to accept his mission) Perhaps Joseph went to tell his brothers that they were wrong in ascribing his dreams to his ambitions, but that for some resaon G'd planned to elevate him to a high position and that Jacob's agreeing to send him on this mission was a sign that all of this had been approved by G'd. He may have hoped to assuage their hatred of him by accepting the misssion.

On the other hand, he may have warned them that the time would come when they would have need of him, and that they might do better to suppress their hatred of him pending further developments; otherwise they would expose themselves to retaliation on his part when the time came. He was convinced that the brothers would accept what seemed to them a heavenly decree.

There is yet another possibility. Joseph actually hoped to draw his brothers' hearts nearer to him. We have a saying Berachot 55 that כל החלומות הולכים אחר הפה, that "all dreams follow the mouth." [What the interpreter sees in the dream determines its true meaning. The reader is referred to an excellent analysis of this statement by Rabbi Yitzchak Arama in chapter 29 of his Akeydat Yitzchak, see my translation page 247, second edition. Ed.] The rabbis also say that one should enquire from someone who is well disposed towards him when searching for the meaning of one's dream (Rosh on that paragraph). Joseph hoped that by telling the brothers of his dreams they would themselves find an acceptable and plausible explanation which would put their minds at ease. At least they would realise that Joseph had no ambition to become king over them. Why else would he be silly enough to provoke their hatred by telling them about his dreams? All of this might have worked if the existing hatred had not already closed the brothers' minds to any conciliatory gestures.

ויחלום יוסף Joseph dreamed. The Torah reports that Joseph only dreamed so that we should not think that he hallucinated making himself believe he had dreamed when in fact he entertained thoughts of lording it over his brothers. The reason that in verse 9 the Torah repeats again that Joseph dreamed is also to emphasise that it was a nocturnal vision, that he had not made up the story he told his brothers.

ויגד לאחיו. He told his brothers. It was a good dream. The brothers were tough as nails and did not even want to know what he had dreamed; this is why he had to say: "please listen to the dream I have dreamed." I am sure that the Torah does not here refer to a dream the content of which has not been mentioned, nor to a dream which did not come true. If the latter, why mention the existence of such a dream? If to tell us that the brothers hated him even more, this too has already been adequately explained. We must therefore assume that these words refer to the dream Joseph revealed only after having insisted that the brothers listen to his dream.

ויחלום....ויאמר, he dreamed, and wanted to make them feel bad seeing that they had displayed jealousy of his father’s love for him, and had allowed that jealousy to deteriorate into hatred of him. Seeing that eventually, Joseph’s rise to power was due to his handling of the harvest in Egypt, the details of the dream were: והנה קמה אלומתי, the symbol of my success, i.e. my sheaf of grain remained erect, whereas your sheaves bowed down to me. It was a fact that in due course the grain harvest was the cause of the brothers prostrating themselves before Joseph.

Er hatte einen Traum und erzählte davon seinen Brüdern. Kaum aber hatte er vertraulich davon angefangen, wollten sie sofort nichts davon hören. Er aber dringt bittend in sie V. 6: den Traum müsst ihr doch hören! — Etymologie von חלם siehe (Kap.20, 3). Ob Träume Bedeutung haben, lassen auch die Weisen als eine offene Frage. Siehe Berachot 55a. Daß aber die Vorsehung diesen halbwachen Zustand benutzt, um Gedanken in die Brust des Menschen zu werfen und ganze Reihen von Begebenheiten damit einzufädeln, daß Gott auch den Glauben der Menschen an Träume in dieser Richtung benutzt, das sehen wir wiederholt aus Jakobs und Josefs Geschichte.

ויגד לאחיו, this too was an ill advised move. Had he been more mature he would have kept the contents of such a dream to himself.

Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers, and they hated him even more. Their hatred of Joseph increased because he related to them the details of his dream.

מלוך תמלוך?, “are you planning to rule over us?” According to Ibn Ezra the expression מלוך refers to rule by a king with the consent of his subjects, so that the brothers asked: “do you expect us to crown you as king over us?” The expression משול refers to imposition of authority without or against the wish of those that are subject to such authority. The brothers wanted to know if Joseph perhaps thought that he could impose his will upon them. It is somewhat difficult to understand why the brothers accused Joseph of such plans, based simply on the fact that he had had a dream or two. Are then dreams something over which the dreamer has control? What proof did the brothers have that Joseph’s dreams reflected his innermost hopes? Some commentators attribute Joseph’s aspirations to the fact that it had become plain that their father had preferred him to all of them, something that had gone to his head and given him ideas of grandeur. The proof that Joseph indeed harboured such thoughts, lay in the fact that even his dreams reflected what he had been thinking about by day.

ועל דבריו, “and on account of his talk.” Joseph’s real error lay in his telling his brothers of his dreams, as if boasting of the grand future that he considered in store for himself. Had he not been telling his brothers the details of his dreams, i.e. שמעו נא החלום הזה אשר חלמתי, “listen please to this dream that I dreamt, etc.,” the entire tragic sequence of events that follow might have been avoided. He had only dreamt one dream, and already he uses it as something inflammatory, something that is bound to arouse further jealousy among his brothers. Why does the Torah refer to חלומותיו, “his dreams,” (pl;) when only the content of a single dream has been reported? (verse 8) Some commentators believe that he had had a previous dream, a dream which the brothers did not pay much attention to, seeing it was an isolated event. Once he told them the content of his second dream they became alerted to the trend displayed in this dream and revised their opinion about the first dream he had told them about, also.

“Joseph had a dream which he told to his brothers” [37:5]. Hizkuni writes. The first dream did not come true, and therefore, it was not written down. He told the dream to his brothers in the hope that they would not hate him if he would become a ruler, since it is from God that he should be a ruler and not from his father’s love. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:5–6.)

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Yoseif had a dream and he told his brothers, and they hated him even more.

And Joseph dreamed a dream, and declared it to his brethren, and they added yet to keep enmity against him.

ויאמר אליהם: שמעו נא, he said to them: “please listen (to my dream).” His reason for telling them of his dream was to explain to them that his being destined for greatness was not due to the way his father preferred him, but seemed to be a destiny decreed by heaven.

שמעו נא החלום, please listen to the dream, etc. He had to add the word נא, please, because at first they had refused to listen.

Alternatively, in accordance with Berachot 56, dreams should preferably be interpreted on the day following (the same day) the night they have been dreamt. This is the reason that one may fast even on the Sabbath if one has had a bad dream. Joseph therefore insisted that the brothers hear him out at once. Any delay might result in the dream not being fulfilled. He may also have wanted to prove to them that he had not told any of his friends about this dream expecting them to give him a positive interpretation, but had instead come to his brothers first. Had he first told his friends of his dream the brothers would not have believed that he wanted to convince them that he wanted to be on good terms with them. According to Berachot 55 Rabbi Banah once told his dream to 24 different interpreters and received 24 different interpretations, each one of which proved correct. It is possible that this was so because none contradicted any of the other interpretations. When contradictory interpretations are received the more recent interpretation cannot cancel out a previous one. Joseph may have wanted to convince the brothers of his תמימות, his sincerity, by offering them a chance to come up with a negative interpretation of his dream which his friends could not later on nullify. He did this by urging them to listen to his dream immediately.

החלום הזה, "this dream." The use of the definitive article ה in front of the word חלום indicates that he had already told them that he had had a dream without revealing any details about it. Now he repeated: "please listen to the dream which I have dreamed."

שמעו נא החלום הזה, not only did he tell them his dream, as something by the way, but he invited them to listen to him tell it by saying שמעו נא “please pay attention!” This could not fail to intensify the hostility of his brothers, as we see immediately by their reaction: “do you plan to rule over us?!”

He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed:

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Nachmanides writes that the brothers are described as such to alert us to the fact that at this point Joseph’s first dream, which involved 10 people binding sheaves was in the process of becoming true. In that dream Binyamin (only 11 years old) was not included as binding sheaves. As soon as the brothers paid their respects to the ruler of Egypt this dream had been fulfilled. (verse 6). The second dream in which eleven stars bowed down to Joseph could not be fulfilled until Binyamin too came to Egypt with his brothers as well as his father Yaakov.

He said to them, Listen [now] to this dream that I dreamt.

And he said to them, Hear now this dream which I have dreamed.

Genesis 42,5-6. “Joseph’s brothers arrived (in Egypt) ‎and bowed down, and prostrated themselves to him.” ‎‎(The ruler in charge of grain sales) ‎וירא יוסף את אחיו ויכירם ‏ויתנכר אליהם‎, “When Joseph saw his brothers, he recognized ‎them and he acted as if he was a stranger to them.” We need ‎to understand what the Torah intended to teach us by writing ‎that Joseph acted as a stranger to them, when this would have ‎become apparent as soon as we read about their dialogue.‎ I believe the line is introduced by the Torah to teach us that ‎the Torah considers Joseph’s conduct at this time as justified. ‎Joseph’s dream had shown him that his brothers would at one ‎stage prostrate themselves before him. (Genesis 37,7) His brothers ‎had opposed the idea that he would become king, ruling over ‎them. It is the way of the world that if someone has been ‎vanquished in a battle or duel, that if he knows who the victor is, ‎he will aim to take revenge sooner or later. If the vanquished ‎person does not know who has defeated him, his embarrassment ‎and desire for revenge will be far less, as other people presumably ‎are also unaware of his having been the loser in a conflict. In our ‎story, Joseph had become the victor; now that his dream had ‎been fulfilled and his brothers had prostrated themselves before ‎him this was all that concerned him, as he no longer felt that his ‎brothers’ accusations that he was an egomaniac, were true. Had ‎the brothers been able to, they would have made every effort to ‎prevent Joseph’s dream from becoming fulfilled. They would have ‎harboured ill will against him as soon as they had realized that his ‎dream had come true, just as they had imagined him as hoping ‎that it would. Therefore, Joseph contented himself with the ‎knowledge that his dream had indeed been fulfilled, making sure ‎that this would not have been at the expense of his brothers ‎becoming upset about this and probably hostile towards him. He ‎therefore acted in a manner that would convince the brothers ‎that the person before whom they had prostrated themselves had ‎not been their long lost brother. Seeing that the person before ‎whom the brothers prostrated themselves was a duly appointed ‎king, -not even one who had come to the throne by revolution- ‎they did not mind having to prostrate themselves before a king ‎such as he, especially as he volunteered- against payment of ‎course- to save them from total economic ruin. Joseph on his part ‎did all that he could to not let the brothers feel that he had ‎bested them. When the Torah describes the sequence of this ‎encounter with the words: “they prostrated themselves and he ‎recognized them, etc.,” this is to hint that it now dawned on ‎Joseph that just as he had recognized them, they might recognize ‎him; in order to avoid their becoming embarrassed he then ‎devised a scheme to disguise himself in every way possible so that ‎they did not recognize him. The Torah reports this to show that ‎his disguise worked.‎ It is also possible to see in the sequence of these verses an ‎explanation why during all these years (22) Joseph had never sent ‎a message to his father showing that he was alive and even ‎prosperous. He knew that his dreams would become true ‎prophetic visions and that that as a result of this his brothers ‎would become deeply saddened and frustrated. Once his father ‎would have been informed of his being alive and well, this would ‎become known to the brothers even if their father did not tell ‎them outright. Yaakov’s whole bearing would change from that ‎of a father grieving for a lost son, and the brothers would notice ‎this.‎

YOSEF, THE TZADDIK OF VALOR Here, Reb Noson expounds Yosef’s dream as alluding to his unique ability to create the constrictions that enable others to perceive Godliness. Reb Noson also shows how this is alluded to in the verses from the Book of Mishlei in praise of the “woman of valor.” This relates to what Yosef dreamed: “Look, we were binding alumim in the field,” where the explanation of the word alumim is “binds.” This signifies the concept of constrictions, which are synonymous with bindings, because a constriction is a binding. In other words, Yosef dreamed that all of the Shevatim engaged in this; they were “binding alumim” and creating bindings and constrictions in order to draw through them a perception of Godliness.

4. Know, too, there is a Holy Name used when we want to appoint a king. This Holy Name is KMH, an acronym of “Hashkifah Mimaon Kadshekha (Look down from Your holy abode).” And this is the aspect of “He deposes kings u ’meHaKeiM (and establishes) kings” (Daniel 2:21). This is also what was said in connection with Yosef: “when suddenly my sheaf KaMaH (stood up)” (Genesis 37:7).

But when his heart breaks within him, and the spirit of uncleanliness and of the sitra achara is broken, and [the forces of evil are] dispersed, then [the Shechinah] rises from its fall and remains upright, as is explained elsewhere.

מאלמים אלימים, “binding sheaves;” this paralleled the manner in which Joseph later on rose to greatness, by piling up corn in anticipation of a famine from which his foresight and providence would save the Egyptian nation and surrounding countries. Compare 41,49: ויצבור יוסף בר, “Joseph heaped up and stored grain;”

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and you were all prostrating yourselves before my sheaf;” this was a sign that the world would look expectantly to Joseph’s harvest, seeing that he was the sole distributor of grain in all of Egypt to all the people.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, “and here we were busy binding sheaves;” when Joseph rose to greatness, the Torah uses a similar expression when describing him as ויצבר יוסף בר, “Joseph bundled together (piled up) corn.” (Genesis 41,49.)

BINDING. Me’allemim (binding) comes from the same root as alummim (sheaves). The noun sheave is also found in the feminine, (Alummim (sheaves) is masculine.) compare, bearing his sheaves (alummotav) (Ps. 126:6). (Alummotav (his sheaves) is feminine.)

CAME ROUND ABOUT. Tesubbenah (came round about) comes from a root whose second and third letters are identical. (Its root is samekh, bet, bet.) The bet receives a dagesh to compensate for a missing bet. (Tesubbenah is spelled with one bet. Thus a root letter is missing. The dagesh doubles the letter and thus compensates for the missing letter.)

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים, "Here we were tying sheaves, etc." Why is the word והנה repeated three times in this verse? You should appreciate that if a dream is to be perceived as a prophetic vision, it is essential that it be as clear and distinct as bright daylight. The person dreaming it should have the feeling that he actually experiences what he sees in the dream as if it were reality. When these conditions are met, he may consider the dream as a prophetic revelation. Dreams that young people dream are often blurred or contain unlikely and exaggerated occurrences. When Joseph told his dream to the brothers he repeated the word והנה three times to demonstrate that each part of the dream had been crystal clear, and that at the time he had thought that the events shown him in the dream were actually happening. This is why he thought that the dream foretold the future in some way.

In the dream G'd showed him the bundles. These bundles represented bundles of מצות which all of the brothers would perform jointly; his own bundle stood more upright than the others as an allusion to his experience with the wife of Potiphar whose advances he had to resist. The fact that his bundle remained standing upright indicated that he would become a ruler in Egypt. All the bundles of the brothers would be relatively downgraded before the merit of Joseph because in the final analysis he provided for all of them and kept them alive during the famine. Joseph hoped that by foretelling them about this their attitude towards him would change for the better.

והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלומים וגו, “and here we were binding sheaves, etc.” They realised in their wisdom that the meaning of the dream was that the sheaves bowing to Joseph’s sheaf meant that he viewed himself as enjoying Royal authority. over them. This feeling of theirs was reinforced by his use of the words נצבה, an expression which is associated with Royalty such as in Kings I 22,48 נצב המלך, ”he acted as king.” It was because they were aware of this interpretation of his dream that they said to Joseph sarcastically: “are you planning to rule over us as a king?” What the brothers were not aware of was the fact that Joseph’s eventual appointment as king would be triggered by the subject of corn harvests (i.e. his prediction of abundance of such harvests and subsequent failure of such harvests). Seeing that they hated Joseph already it is quite understandable that they interpreted his nocturnal dreams as boding no good for them instead of seeing the positive element that might be presaged by such dreams. Actually, even their interpretation of Joseph’s dreams was inspired by G’d who caused them to verbalise such thoughts. This is reminiscent of something we read in connection with Gideon (Judges 7,10) to whom G’d had said that in preparation for his battle against the Midianites and in order to reassure him, he should go down amongst the camp of the Midianites and listen to what they had to say. Gideon did so and overheard a Midianite soldier tell his companion that he had dreamt that there was a commotion; a loaf of barley bread was whirling through the Midianite camp. It came to a tent, struck it, and the tent collapsed and turned upside down and collapsed. To this his companion responded: “this can only mean the sword of the Israelite Gideon son of Yoash. G’d is delivering Midian and the entire camp into his hands.” When Gideon heard the dream told and interpreted, he bowed low. (to G’d in gratitude) This was another instance when G’d inspired someone to interpret and verbalise a dream which subsequently came true. This may be the source of the Talmud saying in Berachot 58 that “all dreams are influenced by the interpretation which is being “given by the mouth,” [i.e. which has been verbalised. Ed.] Here too G’d placed the words in the mouths of the brothers so that eventually Joseph’s dreams would become true.

You will note that the expression והנה occurs three times in this paragraph. This is reminiscent of the three journeys the brothers were to make to Egypt on account of Joseph’s sheaf of corn. Each time the journey meant that they would humble themselves before Joseph. The first time they went to Egypt because of the famine which prevailed in the land of Canaan. The second time they went to Egypt at the insistence of their father, ostensibly in order to buy some grain (43,2) but perhaps even more so in order to secure the release of their brother Shimon. On that occasion Joseph revealed himself to them. The third time they traveled to Egypt with their father as immigrants; by that time all three dreams of Joseph had been fulfilled. ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “and they bowed down to my sheaf.” The sun, moon and stars which bowed down to Joseph in his next dream were Yaakov, Bilhah, and his brothers. The expression וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה, “Israel bowed down (to Joseph) at the head of the bed,” in Genesis 47,31 is the fulfillment of this part of Joseph’s dream. The brothers are reported as prostrating themselves before Joseph already in Genesis 42,6.

MY SHEAF AROSE, AND ALSO PLACED ITSELF UPRIGHT, AND, BEHOLD, YOUR SHEAVES SURROUNDED. The purport of the dream concerning the sheaves is that Joseph was shown that through the sheaves and the produce they will prostrate themselves to him. The matter of “surrounding” — [your sheaves surrounded] — is to indicate that they will surround him as they do a king arrayed for battle, around whom his subjects encamp.

מאלמים אלמים — Understand it as the Targum renders it: were binding bundles i.e. sheaves. Similar is (Psalms 126:6) “bearing (אלומותיו) its sheaves”. Similarly in Mishnaic Hebrew we have (Bava Metzia 22b) “and he takes (האלומות) the sheaves and makes public proclamation”.

קמה אלמתי means it raised itself erect.

וגם נצבה means remaining erect in its place.

Drei Momente sind in dem Traume mit dem dreimal wiederholten "והנה" hervorgehoben. — בתוך השדה ist nicht soviel als: auf dem Felde, das würde בשדה heißen. Ebenso sind אלמים und אלמות wohl nicht daßelbe. Pea 6, 10 wird zwischen אגודים und אגודות unterschieden, und ist dort אלומה nach einer Auffassung: כריכות קטנות ועושין מג׳ או ד׳ עומר א׳. Es scheint, daß das Feld erst völlig geschnitten, sodann erst kleine Bündel, אלומות, gebunden wurden, die sodann zu großen Haufen, אלומים, in die Mitte des leergeschnittenen Ackers zusammengetragen wurden. Er erzählt demnach: Im Traume waren wir gar nicht so geschieden, waren vereinigt bei der Arbeit und wollten größere Haufen in die Mitte des Feldes aus den kleineren zusammentragen. Auch ich war also bereit, meine kleine Garbe zu dem größeren Gesamthaufen hinzutragen; aber die Garbe wollte nicht, stellte sich und blieb stehen, wollte sich nicht zu dem Gesamthaufen in die Mitte tragen lassen. Und nun noch gar traten eure Garben um die meinige herum, und bückten sich vor meiner Garbe! Da lag einmal der vollständige Ausdruck einer isolierten, die andern überragenden, ja sie um sich unterwürfig konzentrierenden Stellung vor, und zwar wider seinen Willen: er war ganz bereit, seinen kleinen Beitrag zu dem Ganzen zu bringen und darin wie die andern aufgehen zu lassen.

Eigentümlich ist es ferner, daß ihm im Traume das Bild von Garbenbinden vorkommt; damit waren sie ja sonst in keiner Weise beschäftigt, sie waren ja Hirten. Ein ackerbautreibendes Volk zu werden, lag ja erst in der Bestimmung ihrer Zukunft. Lagen daher seinem Gemüte Vorstellungen des Ackerbaues so nahe, daß er sich im Traume damit beschäftigte, so konnte dies nur aus Belehrung und Mitteilung seines Vaters Israel über die zu erwartende nationale Bestimmung seines Hauses herrühren. Umsomehr durften die Brüder sich zu der Äußerung berechtigt glauben: Willst du wohl einmal König über uns werden, oder vielleicht gar schon jetzt über uns herrschen? So etwas sollte dir nicht einmal im Traume vorkommen können! Sie hassten ihn daher nur noch mehr, sowohl über den Inhalt seiner Träume als über seine Keckheit — wie sie es auffassten — ihnen solches mitzuteilen.

וגם נצבה, this conveyed to him the impression that his authority would extend over a considerable length of time. In fact, it proved to be so as he ruled for 80 years. There is no record of any ruler mentioned in the Bible as having ruled equally long or longer than Joseph.

To stand steadfastly straight. Rashi is explaining the difference between קמה and נצבה, which seem repetitive because they mean the same. Therefore he explains that קמה means momentarily arising from a lying position, and וגם נצבה means staying that way, remaining steadfastly straight. (R. Meir Stern)

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, as we normally do. Although the sons of Jacob were primarily shepherds, they also owned fields. And behold, instead of resting alongside the other sheaves, my sheaf arose, and also stood upright; and behold, your sheaves gathered around, and prostrated themselves to my sheaf.

ותשתחוין לאלומתי, “they prostrated themselves before my sheaf.” Joseph did not say that these other sheaves prostrated themselves before him, but before his sheaf. (as opposed to his second dream). In that dream he could not have phrased it differently, saying that sun and moon bowed to “my” star, as how would he know that a particular star was his. The interpretation of this first dream is that seeing Joseph provided the grain to the brothers and all other travelers to Egypt during those years, it was as if they prostrated themselves before him. The fact that in his dream the sheaves arranged themselves around his sheaf, conveyed to the brothers that Joseph saw himself as the central figure in all this.

“There we were binding sheaves” [37:7]. Joseph said: I had a dream. We were cutting wheat in the field. My sheaf stood up and your sheaves gathered around mine and they bowed down to my sheaf. Toldot Yizhak writes here. That is to say, the sheaves gathered around and did not voluntarily bow down to my sheaf, but they had to bow down, out of gratitude. Another explanation is that they gathered around my sheaf like a servant who serves his master and runs to his master. Another explanation, “your sheaves gathered around” [37:7]. This means, your sheaves became small. Joseph gathered wheat in Egypt. The grain became spoiled. Joseph explained that in the dream that your sheaves became small. Therefore, though the dream was about sheaves of grain, it showed that the brothers would bow because of grain and hunger. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:7.)

We read in chapter 42,6 that Joseph, though ruler, made it his personal business to allocate grain to the individual buyers. This in spite of the fact that he had many officials who could have attended to such tasks. The reason must be that he supervised the sales personally in order to be on hand when his brothers would show up as buyers sooner or later. When the brothers did arrive, and, naturally bowed down, the first of Joseph's dreams had been fulfilled. (1) His recognition of his brothers was only partial, since they had changed substantially during the twenty years since he had last seen them. The word vayitnakker means "he still remained strange to them," not that he deliberately misrepresented himself still further. The inquiry about their origin was designed to establish positively that these men were indeed his brothers. As soon as the brothers said that they came from Canaan, that clinched the matter for Joseph. From that moment on he had to be careful not to give himself away; therefore, the Torah repeats that now he recognized them fully. The brothers on their part did not have an inkling of Joseph's true identity, however. (2) Once Joseph saw his first dream fulfilled, he became curious to know if the second dream also was capable of being fulfilled. To this end, he devised stratagems that would lead to revelations about which members of his father's generation etc. were alive. Without such knowledge, he judged that the second dream could not possibly become realized. He could not imagine how else eleven stars and a sun could bow down to him. (3) The brothers' reply to Joseph's accusations was two-pronged. We are neither spies, nor, if we ever had been spies are we engaged in plying our trade now. Since the last accusation seemed to expose them to more immediate danger, they responded first to that accusation. They stated unequivocally that they had come to buy grain, witness their beasts and their haversacks etc. They also stated that they had never been spies; on the contrary, they were all the sons of one man. In fact, they said, they could afford to place all their cards on the table. Their answer was disarming in the sense that the brothers felt the secrecy necessary to function successfully as spies could never be maintained in a large family such as theirs. Besides, they argued, a respectable family such as they would have no need to resort to the spying business, anyways. (4) Joseph continued to pry and said that although their natural occupation may not have been spying, on that particular occasion they had come as spies, their gear being only camouflage to hide their real intentions. In this manner, Joseph managed to flush out the information about their father which was what he had been after all along. (5) The classic part of the brothers' answer was that if spies do not operate on behalf of a large group of people, they are a useless commodity. Since the brothers had no such large number of people to fall back on, seeing they were all the sons of one man, and since their residence in the land of Canaan was of recent origin and they were not even landowners, Joseph's accusation was so ludicrous that it was not even worth pursuing. They referred to their father as "one man in the land of Canaan," not "one man from the land of Canaan." Since all the accusations levelled against the brothers had failed to elicit the response Joseph had waited for, namely that his father was still alive, he resorted to their imprisonment and the demand to bring Benjamin to Egypt. He wanted to examine their attitude towards Benjamin, and to judge from their reaction to his demand if their father was still alive. He planned the phony theft of the goblet already at this stage, since he had to find out if the brothers still resented a son of Rachel as a rival for the affection of their father. Even when Benjamin eventually did come down, the question about Jacob being alive had not been settled in his mind, and he had no other recourse but to inquire directly if Jacob was still alive and well. On the surface, Joseph made it appear that questioning a young and inexperienced youth such as Benjamin would be a test of the brothers' truthfulness. If Benjamin in his youthful innocence and naivite would confirm his brothers' statements, that would show Joseph that he was not dealing with spies. When Benjamin finally did get to Egypt, Joseph pretended to be amazed at his age and sophistication, and asked, "Is this your little brother of whom you have spoken?" He meant, "How can I assume that he is more innocent than you are?" I need to test him just as thoroughly. Joseph knew that his father, if still alive, would suffer some anguish, unavoidably, but he did not think that all the brothers would necessarily return with Benjamin. He had considered it more likely that some of the brothers would stay behind with Jacob during that time. The fact that all the brothers did in fact return to Egypt, may have been prompted by their desire to prove their innocence concerning the money that had been found in their sacks after they had left Egypt. (9) The reason Joseph repeated his question about whether their father was still alive after he had revealed himself, was because of the moving description by Yehudah that Benjamin's failure to return would cause Jacob's death.

And at its very outset, Midrash Rabbah (Bereishis Rabbah 1:5.) states: “Let the lying lips be dumb;” (Tehillim 31:19.) this means, “Let them be bound” (The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word te’alamna (תאלמנה). The root of te’alamna, אלם, is also the root for the Hebrew words ileim, i.e. “dumb” or “unable to speak”, and me’aleim, “bind.” The Midrash is explaining that the verse should not be understood as meaning that the liars will literally be dumb. Rather, the lips of the liars will be bound closed.) …. “which speak against the righteous” – this refers to the Ultimate Righteous One, He Who is the Life of all worlds, “insolent words” – this refers to teachings that He has withheld from His creation. (The verse in Tehillim cited by Bereishis Rabbah uses the word assak (עתק), which means “insolence”. This word is also the root of the word he’etik (העתיק), which means “withheld.” Thus, the Midrash is explaining the phrase “insolent words” as referring to the words people use when expounding Torah teachings that God desired to be withheld.) “with pride” – It is as if God says: “I am amazed that in order to boast and say, ‘I can discourse on the mysteries of creation….’ “and with contempt” – “a person will treat My Glory with contempt.” For R. Yossi ben R. Hanina said: “Whoever aggrandizes himself through his fellow man’s degradation has no share in the World to Come. How much more so does this apply when it is done at the expense of the Glory of the Omnipresent.” (Speaking about these mystical secrets publicly demeans God, for the common people who hear these teachings will misunderstand them and speak about God in manner that in truth deprecates Him.) What is written after this verse? “How abundant is Your goodness which You have stored away for those who fear You.” (Tehillim 31:20. The Midrash is praising those who refrain from teaching mystical secrets because of their awe of God and their fear to create misconceptions in the minds of their listeners.) “For those who fear You,” and not for those who degrade Your manifold awe. Let them not have a portion in that “abundant goodness.”

The general mission of Mashiach ben Yosef is three-fold: revelation of the mysteries in the Torah, ingathering of the exiles, and removal of the unclean spirit from the land. The ingathering of exiles encompasses three tasks: building Jerusalem, gathering in the exiles, and fulfilling the commandments dependent on the Land. All these are hinted at in the following sentences: מי יעלה בהר ה׳ [Ps. 24:3] “who will ascend the mountain of the Lord, ” referring to the ingathering of exiles [initial letters — מ ב י — are initials of Mashiach ben Yosef]. [Ps. 24:3] “who will stand up in the place of his sanctuary” referring to the building [initial letters — מ ב י — are initials of Mashiach ben Yosef]. Wherever the word “to stand up” is mentioned, it refers to the line of Mashiach ben Yosef, as in the phrase [Gen. 37:7] “my sheaf rose” [Ps. 24:5] “he will receive a blessing from the Lord” refers to something that carries with it a blessing, such as planting [the initial letters are the initials of Mashiach ben Yosef, though in reverse order — מ ב י . And in the sentences [Jer 31:20] “return to your cities, ” “build Jerusalem, ” [Ps. 102:14] “it is the time to favor her.” ‘To favor’ refers to planting as it states, “he will favor its dirt.” Each one of them accords with the gematria of “testimony in Yosef” that refers to Mashiach ben Yosef.Also, these three tasks were given to Cyrus as it states: “I am the Lord Who confirms the word of His servant, and fulfills the counsel of his messengers; Who says of Jerusalem: ‘It will be settled’... Who says לצולה to the depths, ‘Dry up, and I will dry out your rivers’. Who says of Cyrus, ‘my shepherd’; he will fulfill all my desire, ” etc. [Isa. 44:24-28]. According to the explanation of the Gaon, the word צולה in Gematria equals Samael [סמאל =131] because the purpose of building Eretz Israel is to drive out סמאל from the gates of Jerusalem. And therefore this is the mission of Cyrus as part of the mission of Mashiach ben Yosef from the left side, which means the quality of Din. The might of Mashiach ben Yosef lies in the miraculous assistance he can offer in connection with the ingathering of exiles that will come about when the awakening comes from below.

(Gen. 37:7) “my sheaf rose and also remained standing” -- Anywhere the term arise is used, it is in the line of Yosef. See above (#73) on the aspect: “who will ascend ... and who will rise, ” etc.

Let them be bound: [As] it states, Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field (Gen. 37:7). (In Cordovero’s citation, this verse was not in its proper order. I have restored the text according to J. Theodor and Ch. Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabbah (Jerusalem: Wahrman, 1965), vol. 1, p. 3.) Let them be made dumb: This is as you might say, who makes a man dumb or deaf (Exod. 4:11).

And the mystery of the word: (Gen. 37:7) And behold, we are sheaving etc... ... and behold my sheaf (alumah) rose-up, and it also stood... this is Aleph with vowel-point ḥolem (ֹ) (dreaming) , which is above all vowel-points, with an upright stature, and through it, Joseph ascended [Var. gazed] in a dream (ḥelma) .

And when the Shekhinah ascends towards [And because of this: (Gen. 37:7) ... and behold your sheaves leaned, and bowed down to my sheaf ] this crown, it is stated of it: (Ps. 118:22) The stone which the builders refused, became the head of the corner.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

Rav Huna began in the name of bar Kapara: “May they be silenced [te’alamna], those lying lips [that speak harsh words against the righteous one with arrogance and contempt]” (Psalms 31:19) – may they be bound up, may they become mute, may they be silenced. (The word te’alamna can have all these three meanings, as the Midrash goes on to show.) May they become mute – as it says: “Who gives a mouth to a person, or who renders one mute [ilem] or deaf, or sighted or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?” (Exodus 4:11). And [may they be bound up,] as it says: “Behold, we were binding [me’alemim] sheaves in the field and behold, my sheaf arose” (Genesis 37:7). May they be silenced – that is its plain sense. (That is the literal translation of te’alamna.) “That speak…against the Righteous One” (Psalms 31:19) – [this refers to] Him of eternal life. (The “righteous one” refers to God.) “Harsh words [atak]” (Psalms 31:19) – matters that He concealed [shehe’etik] from His creations. (They speak out loud and expound on the secrets of Creation.) “With arrogance” (Psalms 31:19) – this is an expression of bewilderment: (Can it be that someone would do such a thing out of arrogance?) [Do they do this] in order to boast arrogantly: I am expounding the act of Creation? “And contempt” (Psalms 31:19) – this [too] is an expression of bewilderment: Is it in order to show contempt for My honor? As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: Anyone who attains honor through the degradation of another person has no portion in the World to Come; how much more so is this so regarding the honor of the Omnipresent. What is written following this? “How great is the goodness You have in store for those who fear You” (Psalms 31:20) – for those who fear You, but not for those who demean the [awesome] fear of You. They will not be included in: “How great is the goodness.” The way of the world is that when a flesh-and-blood king builds his palace in [a location that had been] a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place, anyone who comes and says: ‘This palace was built in a place of sewers, a place of refuse, and a malodorous place,’ is this not an insult? So, too, anyone who comes and says: ‘This world was created from emptiness and disorder,’ is this not an insult? This is a rhetorical question. Rav Huna said in the name of bar Kapara: Were the matter not written explicitly it would not have been possible to say it: “In the beginning, God created” (Genesis 1:1) – from what? “The earth was emptiness and disorder” (Genesis 1:2).

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

Another matter, “Judah approached him.” “Behold, days are coming, the utterance of the Lord, and the plowman will encounter [the reaper]…” (Amos 9:13); “plowman” – this is Judah; (See Hosea 10:11.) “the reaper” (Amos 9:13) – this is Joseph, as it is stated: “Behold, we were binding sheaves” (Genesis 37:7). “And the treader [dorekh] of grapes” (Amos 9:13) – this is Judah; “For I will bend [darakhti] Judah as a bow for Me” (Zechariah 9:13). “The sower of seed [bemoshekh hazara]” (Amos 9:13) – this is Joseph, who drew the offspring [shemashakh zaro] of his father, and caused him to descend to Egypt, as it is written: “With ropes of man, I would draw them” (Hosea 11:4). (The “rope” that drew Jacob to Egypt was a man, namely Joseph. ) “The mountains will drip nectar” (Joel 4:18) (The Sages often view mountains as metaphors for the righteous. They “drip nectar” meaning that their words were sweet and so they succeeded in avoiding unnecessary confrontation (Matnot Kehuna).) – these are the tribes. They said: ‘Kings are contending with one another; of what concern is it to us?’

Let our master instruct us further: What is the difference between the dreams of the righteous and the dreams of the wicked? The dreams of the wicked are neither in the heavens nor on the earth. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 41:1): PHARAOH DREAMED, AND THERE HE WAS STANDING ON THE NILE. So also it is written of Nebuchadnezzar (in Dan. 4:2): {IT WAS} [I SAW] A DREAM, AND IT MADE ME AFRAID, for he was neither on the earth nor in the heavens (cf. vss. 7-8). However, the dreams of the righteous are < both > in the heavens and on the earth. You therefore find that Joseph said to his brothers (in Gen. 37:7): HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES: Ergo, < his dreams were > on the earth. Where is it shown that they were also in heaven? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. So also it was in the case of our father Jacob (according to Gen. 28:12): THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER [PLACED ON EARTH WITH ITS TOP REACHING TO THE HEAVENS. Ergo, < his dream was both > in the heavens and on the earth].

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

The next difficulty is: How could a righteous son loved by his father not inform his father that he was alive and save him an untold amount of anguish? Even if Joseph had found himself at the end of the world, instead of in a country bordering on the land of Canaan, was he not duty bound to let his father know that he was alive instead of letting him suffer pain for twenty-two years?

לאלומה – to reap in order to prohibit through it other sheaves, like (Genesis 37:7): “binding sheaves [in the field]…”

... And in truth, the greatness of the righteousness of his heart with God prevented him from fulfilling the commandment of honoring his father (and to tell his father that he was alive); in the same way that all of his behavior towards his brothers at this time - even though at first glance it appears as one who is taking vengeance upon them... in truth [was] only because of his righteousness, to not do anything against the will of his Maker. For so was the decree from the Most High which He showed him in a prophetic dream - "and they bowed down to my sheave" (Genesis 37:7). And he did it with great wisdom and deep counsel that they would not fulfill these bowings and this submission in front of him, while knowing that he was Joseph - as this would have been a great embarrassment for them. Surely to save them from this, he made great efforts that they should fulfill [the dream] without knowing that he was the one to whom they were bowing. [This is] as the verse testifies - "And Joseph remembered the dreams that he dreamt about them" (42:9), as explained there. Likewise was Joseph concerned in his heart about informing his father at the beginning of his being brought up, that he was alive and was the ruler of the country, lest the decree of the Most High about the bowings of the sheaves and the eleven stars be nullified. Behold it is for this reason - even though he was personally yearning to honor his father with the good news - that he nevertheless needed to strain with great strength  to nullify the commandment of honoring his father (in the same was as there is no room for the commandment of honoring one's father if, through it, he nullifies one of the commandments of the Lord)... Behold, in order to fulfill the will of his Maker, he was obligated to forget the honor of his father from his heart, even though he found himself obligated to honor him every instant... Hence he called his son, Menasseh, "as the Lord made me forget..." - He is the one who assisted me that I not think about the honor of my father, as if he was forgotten from my heart. And most of the usage of forgetting is just about not putting one's attention to something; in that it is not [sufficiently] important in his eyes to put his mind to it (hence, he "puts it to the side"). And he said, "all of my father's house," to include all those connected with his father, as they were all equally good in his eyes. And he did not have a grudge in his heart about what they did to him; as he said to them afterwards (Genesis 45:8), "It is not you that sent me here, but rather God." And [about] that which he said, "all of my toil" - his intention was not that with the status of being raised up, he forgot all of the heartaches which he had before his entering into all of this honor. For in fact his intention even at the time of his toil when he had the status of a slave - even though he was forced to be involved in things that were unnatural for him - [was that] this toil was not a strain and a burden upon him; as he accepted it with a joyful heart and gave thanks to Him, may He be blessed, that He helped him spiritually that he should not think of it as a strain, but rather to do it with a good heart. So all of the great toil was as removed and forgotten [even] in its time...

Bundles (Kerichot) - Small sheaves. [It is] like we translate "gathering bundles" (Genesis 37:7), [as] mekarkhan kerichan in the Jerusalem Talmud.

O Lord, Your hand has been taken away I have seen many Aggadic Midrashim on the verses of the above section and the following, but they are not appropriate, either because of the grammatical forms of the language or because of the context of the verses. I had to explain it according to its order. There is an Aggadic Midrash that states that the prophet begs that the nations not see the bounty of the Holy One, blessed be He, when He lavishes good upon Israel. The Holy One, blessed be He, replied, “It is better that they see and be ashamed,” (Eliyahu Zuta ch. 21). (The Midrash explains the verse as follows: O Lord, take away Your hand, so that they see not. I.e., the prophet begs that God conceal His might from the nations that they see it not. Thereupon, God replies, “Let them see and be ashamed...”) This does not fit with the language, however, since it does not say, “Raise Your hand.” Moreover, this word differs from all similar words. Every יָד רָמָה is accented on the final syllable, whereas this one is accented on the first syllable. Comp. (Gen. 37:7) “Behold, my sheaf rose (קָמָה).” Comp. also (Ruth 1:9) “Behold your sister in law has returned (שָׁבָה).” All of these are in the past tense. This too is to be explained: The hand of Your might has been taken away from upon Your enemies so that they see not Your might for they have seen that their way has prospered. I beg of You, let them see and be ashamed.

In addition, one may explain the word se’arum [as having the same meaning] as “demons”, etc. Here too it would mean “awed by them.” But the word “by them” would mean “from the demons” which refers to the demons mentioned above. The word שערום means “they made demons” just as מאלמים means אלומים (makes bundles)” (Bereishis 37:7). (Re”m)

A Mystical “Happening:” This passage begins with the word ma’aseh which literally is a tale or an incident. By transposing the letters of the word, it spells mah, “what,” and shin-eiyin is the number 270. By joining together in a mystical fellowship and negating their own self-interests, they drew down upon themselves 270 supernal rivers of light. This is the essence of the mitzvah of the Seder; to eat it in a fellowship. How do we know joined together in a state of ecstasy? The Talmud teaches us that one should not recline in the presence of one’s teacher; yet here all the sages reclined, even though Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Joshua were in the presence of their teacher, Rabbi Eliezer. There are two reasons for this. First, the word misubim, “reclined,” may have a different meaning here. This word may be from the word saviv, “surrounded,” as in Genesis 37:7: “And behold, your sheaves stood round about. ” When the Haggadah says the sages were misubim, it doesn’t mean they were reclining. Rather they were surrounded by a mystical fire and became completely unaware of their very being and one another. As a result of this they entered into the presence of the Holy One, and approached a moment were they were about to release themselves from material existence. We try to reach this state by following Rabbi Isaac Luria’s custom of declaring, before we pray, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” In this way we express our willingness to place our love of others above our self interests. By sincerely performing this mitzvah we will become less focused on our own ego and we will be able to enter into the presence of God. Having reached this mystical state, their students now brought their teachers back to reality by reminding them that it was time for the morning Sh’ma. They said, “Is it really time for you to leave this world and experience the final unification?” (The morning Sh’ma is a reference to this final and ultimate mystical experience. The evening Sh’ma is the beginning of divine service since it is at the beginning of the day, and the morning Sh’ma is the culmination of divine service in which we accept the yoke of God’s sovereignty.

[78] But he who was both the initiated and the initiator in the mysteries of dreams boldly said that his sheaf rose and stood upright (Gen. 37:7). For indeed as skittish horses rear their necks proudly on high, so all the votaries of vainglory set themselves up above everything, above cities and laws and ancestral customs and the affairs of the several citizens.

[6] It would seem fitting always to begin our teaching with those which come first; and first to come are those which Joseph saw when from the divisions of the universe, two in number, heaven and earth, two visions were presented to him. From the earth came the dream of the reaping. It runs on this wise: “Methought that we were binding sheaves in the midst of the plain, and my sheaf rose up” (Gen. 37:7). The other has to do with the zodiac: “As it were the sun and the moon and eleven stars worshipped me” (ibid. 9).

[17] In what we have said so far we have been giving a rough sketch of Joseph’s character. We must now consider in detail each of his dreams. And the one which must be examined first is the one concerning the sheaves. “Methought,” says he, “that we were binding sheaves” (Gen. 37:7). The very first word, “methought,” is the utterance of one at a loss, hesitating, dimly supposing, not seeing steadily and distinctly.

[30] But in fact the man who has never learned the mysteries of reaping vaunts him saying, “Methought I was in company with others binding sheaves which I had not reaped” (Gen. 37:7), and failed, as I pointed out a little while ago, to take into account that this is a service performed by unskilled slaves.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Siracides: What is beyond you do not have to know, what is deeper than the abyss do not investigate. Ponder what is permitted to you; you have no concern with hidden things (Siracides3:21–22. Babli 13a.) . (For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7).) Rav said, may lying lips be אלם (Ps. 31:19.) : may they become dumb, be rubbed out, silenced. May they become dumb, as you are saying, the Eternal said to him, Who formed a mouth (Ex. 4:11, mentioning deafness and dumbness.) etc. May they be rubbed out, as you are saying, here we were tying sheaves (Gen. 37:7. Reading the word for “sheaf” as “assembly of single stalks”.) . May they be silenced, as it is understood. Which talk boasting about a just one (For the following, including the next paragraph, cf.Gen. rabba1(7).) , who talk about the Universal Just One in matters which He hid from His creatures. With haughtiness and contempt (Ps. 31:19.) , that is he who is haughty to say, I am investigating the Creation. He feels like haughty but only is insulting.

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the middle of the field. Behold my sheaf rose and stood up straight; and behold your sheaves surrounded it and prostrated themselves to my sheaf.

Were binding sheaves.

Behold, we were binding sheaves in the midst of the field, and lo, my sheaf arose, and stood upright; and, behold, your sheaves surrounded and bowed to my sheaf.

על חלומותיו, “on account of his dreams.” If you were to ask that thus far Joseph has been reported as telling his brothers the content of only a single dream, so why does the Torah speak of “dreams” in the plural mode? We must answer that the Torah already referred also to events in the future. Alternately, Joseph had been in the habit of telling his brothers about his dreams, but it was only the ones in which he appeared as placing himself above his brothers that they hated him for.

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Shall we set thee up as a king over us? (A king is chosen by the people. Hence I.E.’s comment (Krinsky).) Or shalt thou rule over us by force. (A ruler is not chosen, he seizes power. Hence I.E.’s comment (Krinsky).)

Will you be a king … will you rule. They noted a contradiction in his dream — his sheaf arising on its own indicated that he would rule by force, but the surrounding of his sheaf by theirs indicated that they would crown him king voluntarily.

ויאמרו לו אחיו, His brothers said to him, etc. We need to understand why both the word מלך and the word משל are repeated here. This dream could have been interpreted in two ways. 1) It could presage that Joseph would become an actual physical ruler i.e. מלך; 2) it could presage merely ממשלה. The interpretation that Joseph would become an actual ruler was an interpretation that allowed for some doubt, whereas the interpretation that he would become a משל, a highly placed administrator, seemed absolutely certain. This is why they answered him in accordance with either of these possibilities. Concerning the possibility of his becoming an actual ruler they asked: המלך תמלך עלינו? "Are you really considering the possibility of becoming king over us?" Concerning the definite prediction that he would become a highly placed administrator, they asked אם משל תמשל בנו, "are you going to be administrator over us? Onkelos has referred to this distinction when he rendered the first המלך as את מדמי "do you imagine, etc?" whereas he renders the word אם משל as את סביר, do you think, etc?" The brothers repeated the words because they were amazed at two aspects of the interpretation. 1) Do you think you will become king at all? 2) Do you think your authority as king will also extend over us? The reason for their incredulity was the fact that they had a tradition that Yehudah would become king over all of them. How could Joseph's vision uproot such a tradition?

Another reason these words are repeated is that they accused Joseph of dreaming at night what he had been day-dreaming about by day. They said: "It is only because you have a desire to rule over us that you are able to have such dreams even at night!" This would correspond to Daniel 2,29: רעיוניך על משכבך סלקו "your thoughts (of the day) returned to you while you were on your bed (at night)."

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אוחו, They hated him even more, etc. Since we explained that the dream under discussion is only one, we need to understand why the Torah mentions that the reason the brothers hated Joseph even more was because of "his dreams" (pl). This is accounted for by the various details in the dream. Each time Joseph had said והנה, the brothers understood this as a separate dream.

ועל דבריו. and because of his talk. Because he told them the contents of his dream. It was bad enough that he had such dreams; talking about them made it even worse.

Another reason maybe the one we already mentioned. The brothers felt that Joseph's dreams reflected his aspirations during daytime.

It is also possible that the meaning of the expression ועל דבריו is that whereas he spoke to them as if he were soliciting their friendship and brotherliness, in his heart he strove all the time to become a ruler over them.

ויוסיפו עוד שנוא אותו על חלומותיו ועל דבריו. “They continued to hate him still more on account of his words and his dreams.” The verse explains that their hatred was fanned by two separate causes. First they hated him for having dreamt the kind of dream that he did dream. In addition they hated him for telling them of his dream and bragging about it. It was like a sinful nation who is reprimanded but believes itself righteous expecting favours from G’d instead (Isaiah 58,2).

ויאמרו לו אחיו, are you planning to lord it over us? If you have dreams of this kind, this only reflects dreams of power you entertain during the day.

על חלומותיו, the plural “dreams,” seeing that only one dream had been reported in detail, suggests there had been at least one more dream of which the Torah did not tell us its content. The other dream may not have directly aroused an intensification of the brothers’ hatred, or, the plural includes already the dream to come that has not been spelled out as yet. The Torah spelled out only two dreams as they were the ones fuelling the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph.

ועל דבריו, and on account of his overbearing manner, and the fact that he spread slanderous remarks about them.

SHALT THOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? OR SHALT THOU INDEED HAVE DOMINION OVER US? Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Shall we voluntarily make you king over us, or will you rule over us by force?” The opinion of Onkelos appears to be more correct. (Since the authority of a king is essentially the same whether he rules by consent or force, Scripture should not change the expression from malach (reign) to mashal (dominion) if the explanation of Ibn Ezra is correct. Hence Ramban prefers Onkelos’ explanation which follows.) He rendered it: “Shall you be king over us or some authority ruling us?” For people prostrate themselves before both. The verse thus means, “You will never be king or any kind of authority over us.” The meaning of the expression, And they continued to hate him still more for his dreams, and for his words, is that they hated him for the dreams and for relating the dreams to them in a boastful manner, even as it says, Hear, I pray you, this dream which I have dreamed. (Verse 6 here.)

ועל דבריו, the badmouthing. [how did the brothers find out about this? Ed.]

ועל דבריו AND FOR HIS WORDS — for the evil report about them which he used to bring to their father.

חלומותיו, because of his dreams. The details he told them proved to the brothers that Joseph was hoping that his dreams would be realised.

ועל דבריו, and on account of his having insisted that they listen to the details of what he had dreamt.

His brothers, who understood the dream as a metaphor suggesting Joseph’s dominance over them, said to him: Will you reign over us? Will you have dominion over us? There is no chance for that. They hated him even more for his dreams, and for his words. The brother’s hatred of Joseph, which stemmed from his status as favorite son and from the negative reports about them that he would bring to Jacob, was further intensified by the arrogance he expressed through his dreams. Now, in addition to dealing with the fact that Joseph was favored by Jacob, the brothers must contend with a person who entertained megalomaniacal aspirations.

“His brothers answered, so you mean to reign” [37:8]. The brothers were very wise and thought that the dream meant that Joseph would be a king over his brothers. Therefore, they said: do you want to be a king over us? Bahya writes. The brothers hated Joseph very much. Why did they interpret the dream positively? The explanation is that the Holy One made them speak well of his dream with their mouths. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:7.)

“They hated him even more for his talk about his dreams” [37:8]. His brothers hated him because of the dream and also hated him and because he told the dreams to his father and boasted of the dreams. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:8.)

That special merit accrues to one who dwells in the Land of Israel even in the absence of a divine commandment, and indeed even before it became the homeland of the Jewish nation, may be inferred from the midrashic comment upon the verse "And Jacob was sorely afraid" (Gen. 37:8). Jacob's fear seems to be groundless. Earlier, while fleeing from the wrath of his brother Esau, God had promised him, "And behold I am with you and I will watch over you wherever you will go" (Gen. 28:15). Why, then does Jacob find cause for fear upon his return from the home of Laban? The Midrash comments that Jacob feared a confrontation with his brother Esau because, "All those years Esau dwelt in the Land of Israel; perhaps he will come against me, by virtue of the power of residence in the Land of Israel." (Bereshit Rabbah 76:2.)

Thirdly, the nature of the crime was such that Joseph had latitude to vary the penalty; therefore, Yehudah asked to be allowed to serve his brother's sentence, since he was anyways much better suited to perform the tasks a slave would be expected to perform. At any rate, he could not return to face his father in view of the fact that he had guaranteed their brother's safe return. The entire journey to Egypt had only been due to Yehudah's insistence. Moreover, if he were to return to Canaan minus Benjamin, he would be forced to witness the death of his father from anguish. (16) Joseph's emotions had overcome him on two previous occasions. Once when he had heard the brothers confess their guilt about their conduct versus himself, the other time when he had first set eyes on Benjamin. On one occasion he had left the room to cry; the other time he could restrain himself only with difficulty. This time his emotions were so strong that instead of leaving the room himself, he ordered everyone out of the room, so that his servants would not see him cry. Since they had left him in order not to witness their ruler cry, it happened that they also missed the dramatic moment of Joseph revealing himself to his brothers. The Torah, by again using the term mitapek, holding himself back, wants to contrast the increasing emotional stress Joseph underwent at each successive encounter with the brothers. That he asked about his father, having just heard from Yehudah, only emphasizes the fact that Yehudah's description had been so heart-rending, that Joseph had needed confirmation that his father had still been alive at the time the brothers had left the land of Canaan. Concerning the conflicting statements about the brothers having sold Joseph to Egypt, the meaning is, of course, that whereas G-d’s actions are invariably good, He used the brothers' action to turn it to constructive use on behalf of the Egyptian nation. Therefore, the brothers ought not to grieve that their purpose, namely to prevent Joseph's dreams from coming true, had not been accomplished. G-d had accomplished a far greater purpose, using an action initiated by the brothers. Even their own welfare had been enhanced. Since G-d had sent Joseph to Egypt, they would be spared the ravages of the famine still in store for Egypt and the surrounding countries. Now that they had seen the work of G-d, they would realize that the dreams involving Joseph's being a ruler, referred to his being a ruler over the Egyptians, not as they had thought as him becoming a ruler over them. They had therefore proven to have been tools in the hands of G-d who had engineered his being brought to Egypt, using the brothers' suspicions to serve His overall design. When the brothers asked Joseph's forgiveness at a later stage after their father had died, when they were afraid of Joseph intiating reprisals, they said, "Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the G-d of your father," reminding Joseph that whatever they had done to him, had been done in the service of G-d, by Joseph's own admission. Joseph's reply to that argument will be discussed in Chapter thirty-three. (20) Joseph had to explain that he could keep his father and family in style only if they came to Egypt, where he was in a position to exercise power and influence, and that therefore, no disgrace was attached to their father's migrating to Egypt. (19) When proving his identity, Joseph had to use the kind of proof that would also convince his brother Benjamin, who had neither known of the fact that the brothers had sold him, nor had been aware of the details of what had happened at the time of the sale. The latter facts could have been common knowledge only among the ten brothers and Joseph. Use of the Hebrew language by Joseph all of a sudden would be one point, the other would be the modesty with which he gave the entire credit for his meteoric rise to power to G-d. (21) His mode of behavior towards Benjamin, the crying, the larger gifts etc. all helped to convince the brothers that this was no charade, but that it was indeed their long lost brother who stood before them. The opening phrase of the Midrash quoting Solomon about the superiority of using wit against naked force, is thus explained. (20) The satisfaction felt in Pharaoh's palace and the Egyptian establishment about the turn of events was very considerable. First of all, Joseph was very popular, and for that reason his family would be made welcome as an act of esteem towards him. Secondly, any negative feelings that might have been rampant about the rise of a lowly alien slave to the position of economic Czar, could now be parried, when it could be shown that Joseph had been born into a most prestigious family in Canaan. Pharaoh himself had to authorize the despatch of wagons, since those were not allowed to leave the country without his special permission. He emphasized that they should bring their families, not to worry about leaving behind belongings, since Pharaoh could easily recompense them for anything they might have to leave behind. Chapter 45,21 then tells us that the sons of Israel complied with Pharaoh's generous offer. Joseph wanted his brothers to put on clothing befitting their new station in life, just as he himself had changed his mode of dress when he came out of the dungeon to interpret Pharaoh's dream. The larger gifts for Benjamin represented his special needs, since presumably Benjamin did not return to Canaan and needed changes of clothing for a prolonged stay in Egypt. He also needed extra funds, whereas the ten brothers took food supplies home to Canaan. (18) The description of his power and glory in Egypt was appended to help convince Jacob that once in Egypt, he could look forward to a dignified lifestyle, did not have to view himself as an immigrant without rights.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

[3] Another interpretation: "And Jacob saw" Like it is said in scriptures: that he said "Who commands the sun not to shine" and to consume (Job 9:7).Indeed, all of Job's wisdom - does he not know that if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to command the sun, moon, and stars not to shine, they would not shine, except for Jacob and his sons who are compared to the sun, moon, and stars, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me" (Genesis 37:9). Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years, and the Divine spirit was withdrawn from Jacob and his sons, and he was not far from them except for three days, and they did not know that he was in Egypt. Before that, great prophets were Jacob and his sons. If you wish to know, when Joseph related his dreams to them, what did they say to him? "Are you really going to be a king and rule over us?" (Genesis 37:8). And when he was sold, they did not know where he was. Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say this and why did He do it? In order that the prophets should not become haughty, He weakened their power and showed them that they were nothing. This is also the way Moses, the greatest of the prophets, was tested, as it is said, "The matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me" (Deuteronomy 1:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You can solve a difficult problem? I will test you." When the case of the daughters of Zelophehad came before him, he began to falter, not knowing what to say. He only said, "And Moses brought their case before the Lord" (Numbers 27:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Moses, did you not say, 'The matter that is too difficult for you'? Behold, the women know something that you do not know, as it is said, 'So are the daughters of Zelophehad speaking'" (Numbers 27:7). The women argued more eloquently than you did. Even though Samuel was as respected as Moses, when he said to Saul "I am the one who sees" (1 Samuel 9:19), the Lord said to him, "Tomorrow I will show you if you really see, as it is written, 'Fill your horn with oil' (1 Samuel 16:1)." As soon as he went and saw Eliab, the Lord said to him, "You are the one who said 'I see,' but you did not see, as it is written, 'Do not look at his appearance' (1 Samuel 16:7). Why does one who chips away at a stone finish it? (Job 9:7). Even Elisha, a great man, accomplished double the miracles that Elijah did, as it is written, "Please let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me" (2 Kings 2:9). And there came a moment when he knew nothing, when he saw the Shunammite woman coming to him, he said to Gehazi, "Please run to meet her and ask her, 'Are you well? Is your husband well? Is your child well?'" (2 Kings 4:26). He did not know that the child had died. Eventually, he felt something and said to Gehazi, "Let her be, for her soul is bitter within her, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me" (2 Kings 4:27). Thus, you have learned that everything is from the Almighty - if He wants people to see, they will see, and if He wants them to hear, they will hear, as it is written, "The ear that hears and the eye that sees - the Lord has made them both" (Proverbs 20:12). Therefore, it is said, "He who says to the deaf, etc." (Proverbs 27:14).

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

(Ibid. 5): "And Joseph dreamed a dream… (8) …Will you reign over us?": Scripture expatiates upon the dreams to rationalize somewhat the extreme hatred of the brothers to Joseph to the point of wanting to remove him from the world: They assumed that he desired to reign over them, for which reason he had brought "evil report" of them to their father, so that he should remove them from his presence [as Rashi explains (Ibid.): "for his dreams and for his words" — "for the evil report that he had brought to their father." And the robe that his father made him served as "supporting evidence" that he had accepted his report], and that perhaps, G-d forbid, he would agree with Joseph, so that he [Joseph] would be a "master" over them, as in Isaac's blessing to Jacob (Ibid. 27:29): "Be a master to you brothers, and your mother's sons will bow down to you." Or, [they thought,] G-d forbid, that he [Jacob] would banish them altogether, as Noach said (Ibid. 9:25): "Cursed is Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers." Therefore, they took counsel on how to rid themselves of him.

And to rule over the day and the night (velimshol bayom ouvalila): The root, mem-shin-lamed (to rule) is connected to the [letter,] bet [after it], as [is the case with] (Genesis 37:8), "will you surely rule over us (timshol banu)." And the intention is that the night and the day be under the rulership of the luminaries as I have explained; and not that they will rule over the lower beings, this one by day and this one by night as is the opinion of Ramban. And this matter still requires much study, and maybe [Ramban] is right; and so did the Psalmist say (Psalms 136:8-9), "for the government of the day... for the government of the night." And it appears that this is what the author of the cantillation marks intended in verse 16, as he wanted to attach "and the small luminary to rule the night" with "and the stars;" as the psalmist [there] said, "and the moon and the stars for the government of the night."

[93] Praise therefore is due to those also who are here under consideration, because they did not give way to the champion of vainglory but resisted him and said: “Shalt thou indeed reign over us? Not so” (Gen. 37:8). For they see that he is not yet become strong, that he is not as a flame fully kindled and shining brightly with abundance of fuel to feed it, but is still a mere smouldering spark, one who sees glory but as in a dream and does not yet pursue it with clear waking vision.

His brothers said to him, Will you then be a king over us? [Do you imagine that you will reign over us?] Will you indeed rule over us? [Or do you think that you will rule over us?] They hated him even more because of his dreams and his words.

And his brothers said to him, Art thou thinking to reign over us, or dost thou expect to have rule over us? And they added yet to keep enmity against him, for his dream and for his words.

THE SUN, THE MOON, AND THE DISTANT STARS Lastly, Reb Noson shows that Yosef’s second dream too alludes to his being the great tzaddik who “turns the many to righteousness” by instilling them with perceptions of Godliness. And this is the meaning of “Look, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars are bowing down to me.”

'והנה השמש והירח וגו, “and behold, the sun and the moon, etc.” we read in B’reshit Rabbah 84,11, that when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still in Joshua 10,12, the sun refused to accept his command until he added: “did you not bow down to my forefather already?” (Joshua was descended from Ephrayim, son of Joseph) Upon hearing this, the sun complied with Joshua’s command.

ויחלום, in this dream the meaning is crystal clear. Sun and moon refer to Joseph’s parents, whereas the stars refer to his brothers, seeing there were 11 stars in the dream and Joseph had eleven brothers. All the dreams the content of which the Torah described are to be understood as posing a riddle, a challenge to translate the symbols described in the respective dreams into the matching reality in the “real” world. This is true not only of Joseph’s dreams, but equally of the dreams of the cup-bearer and of the Chief of the bakers whom Joseph met in jail. Also Pharaoh’s dream as related in the Torah, and the dream of Nevuchadnezzar as described in the Book of Daniel follow the same pattern. All of them became reality in accordance with the manner in which they had been interpreted.

He dreamed yet another dream, presumably on another night, 2 and he related it to his brothers. He said: Behold, I dreamed another dream, and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me.

ויחלום עוד חלום אחר, “He dreamt yet another dream.” The reason why G’d did not fulfill the events foreshadowed in the dream promptly, as He did with the events foreshadowed in Pharaoh’s dream in chapter 41, may have been that Pharaoh had dreamt both dreams in a single night, whereas Joseph had his dreams on different nights.

You will find also in the words of Moses at the end of the Torah a promise well-known to be about the world to come, which is what is written, “O happy Israel! Who is like you, A people delivered by the Lord.” (Dt 33:29.) Because it specified above the destined physical rewards, when it said, “Thus Israel will dwell in safety, untroubled will be Jacob’s abode, in a land of grain and wine, under heavens dripping dew,” (Ibid., 33:28.) so it connected it immediately to “O Happy Israel!” to say “don’t think that the only recompense and reward you’ll have for doing the mitzvoth will be in this world.” That’s why it said, “O Happy [ashrekha] Israel,” as our sages taught in a midrash, “‘You shall be happy [ashrekha] and you shall prosper,’ (Ps 128:2.) ‘You shall be happy’ – in this world, and ‘You shall prosper’ – in the world to come.” (M. Avot 4:1.) And afterwards it said, “Who is like you?” (Dt 33:29.) that is to say, who among all the nations is like you will be “delivered by the Lord” – which means the salvation [t’shua’at] of the soul in the world of souls, which is why it said, “delivered [nosha’] by the Lord.” (Ibid.) It’s like the similar expression of the prophet: “Israel has been delivered [nosha’] by the Lord, with salvation [t’shuat] everlasting.” (Is 45:17: literally “salvation of the worlds” – t’shuat olamim – the plural of which R. Bahya without a doubt understands as an allusion to salvation in both worlds – this world and the world to come.) And it said, “your protecting shield” (Dt 33:29.) because after it specified the reward of the soul and its salvation in the world of souls, it gave a sign for this and said that Ha-Shem (may He be blessed) is their shield, their protection and their “sword triumphant” [herev ge’utam], (Ibid., literally, “the sword of your pride.”) that is, something they could be proud [le-hitga’ot] about, hence “your protecting shield.” (Ibid.) And this would even include what midat ha-din above is called – magen – “shield”, because one usually holds a shield in the left hand, and He keeps us safe with it so that by protecting us, we need not be afraid of the enemy overpowering it, and so David said, “You have granted me the shield of Your protection – magen yish’ekha“ (2 Sam 22:36, or “shield of Your salvation.”) – the shield which protects You. And he explained further, “For YHWH God is sun and shield,” (Ps 84:12.) that is, “the Great Name” [of YHWH], the quality of Jacob, which is called “sun.” (E.g., in Joseph’s dream, Gen 37:9, where the sun clearly stands for Jacob. I think R. Bahya means that “sun” is expression for God’s other main attribute, His “right hand” – midat ha-rahamim. Thus, when David referred to “Lord God” as “sun and shield” in Ps 84:12, from a kabbalistic perspective, it’s a reference to God having both midat ha-din and midat ha-rahamim, the attribute of severity and the attribute of compassion. I.e., YHWH (“Lord”) = “sun” = “Jacob” = midat ha-rahamim, while Elohim (“God”) = “shield” = midat ha-din.) And so our rabbis z”l taught in a midrash, “Jacob said, ‘Who revealed to him [Joseph] that my name [sh’my] was ‘sun’?” (Bereshit Rabba 84:10. Or as R. Bahya interprets it, sh’my= shem Y’, “the great name of YHWH.”) And he called the heavenly midat ha-din “shield,” and this what is meant by “For YHWH God is sun and shield;” (Ps 84:12.) this is why it is specified “Your protecting shield, your sword of pride” (Dt 33:29.) because of Israel having this eternal success and ultimate victory over all their enemies. So all this is a sign that they are attached to and will be delivered by Ha-Shem in the world of souls. If so, then the account of the things destined for the soul in the Torah are only there by analogy and as a sign, so set your heart to the words of Moses, how he wanted on the day of his death to “seal” his words in the upper world – understand this!

Yalkut Shimoni on Joshua 22 item 247 relates that when Joshua told the sun, "Stand still," the sun replied, "You are telling me to stand still?!" Joshua said, "Yes!" The sun said, "If I stand still, who will sing the praises of G-d during that time?" Joshua replied, "You be still and I will sing the praises of G-d, as is written in the book of Joshua "Az,” "Then Joshua would say etc.," and we know that wherever the expression “az” is used it is followed by a song of praise (Joshua 10,12). Similarly, “az yashir Moshe,” then Moses would sing a song of praise (Exodus 15,1). The Yalkut exemplifies what we have explained before. The sun testifies to the presence of its Master, i.e. G-d, by its very orderly and predictable orbit. Its failure to perform on time, might give rise to the notion that coincidences govern the universe. Joshua replied that there is another way to testify to the existence of an absolute and free Master, and that this was what he proposed to do by means of working a supernatural, temporary miracle, arresting the sun's motion. A slightly different version of the same conversation between the sun and Joshua has the sun saying, "How can a small one say to a big one ‘Be silent, stand still?!’" The sun meant that having been created already on the fourth day of creation, how could it accept orders from a mere mortal who had only been created on the sixth day of creation?! It did not need to accept orders from its juniors. Joshua's reply was, "Does a young freeman never tell an older slave to keep still? You are the slave, having been created to serve the freeman Abraham. You have bowed to Joseph, (‘The sun, moon, and stars were bowing down to me,’ Genesis 37,9). This makes you merely a bondsman.” The end of that version is similar to that in the Yalkut.

Instead, according to my humble understanding, the apparent contradiction stems from a fundamental question: Why did the verse use the terms “the great luminaries,” “the great luminary,” and “the small luminary,” which require explanation? It is true, the explanation is obvious, but still the verse could have been worded in a manner which did not require any explanation. Scripture could have simply referred to the luminaries by name, i.e., Scripture could have referred to the luminaries as “the sun” and “the moon,” as Yosef did, in the verse: (Bereishis 37:9.) “Behold, the sun and the moon bowed to me,” and as Moshe Rabbeinu did in Parshas Va’Eschanan, in the verse: (Devarim 4:19.) “and you see the sun and the moon,” and in Parshas Shoftim, which speaks of serving other gods including (Ibid. 17:3.) “the sun or the moon.” Similarly, here, the narrative should have stated, “God made the sun and the moon, the sun to rule during the day and the moon to rule during the night.” It cannot be said that Scripture intends to teach the concept that the light of the sun and the moon is greater than that of the other luminaries, and that the light of one is greater than the other. That would certainly be of no purpose. Why would Scripture need to tell us something that is obvious?

Scriptural support for the proposition that God made this statement to the moon appears clear to me from the Midrashic passage (Shmos Rabbah 15:27.) cited previously (P. 74 above.) when quoting the author of the Akeidah, who uses the sun and the moon as metaphors for Esav and Yaakov. Extending this analogy, a unique interpretation can be given to Yosef’s dream. Yosef told his father and brothers that he dreamt that (Bereishis 37:9.) “the sun, the moon, and eleven stars are bowing down to me.” Yaakov appeared to reject the dream, questioning, (Ibid. 37:10.) “Will I and your mother come…,” ostensibly because he thought that the sun referred to him and the moon to Yosef’s mother. However, according to the understanding of the passage in Chulin, the sun refers to Esav and to all the nations like him. Esav’s descendants and all these nations bowed down to Yosef when they came to him to purchase grain. Do not negate this interpretation because it includes all the nations that resemble Esav together with him, for these twins, Yaakov and Esav, represent all humanity, since there is no one distinct from all other men except Yaakov. All mankind aside from Yaakov are fundamentally the same – a single entity. True, at present, distinctions have arisen between nations. However, in earlier eras – and certainly, in the time of the Patriarchs – Esav can be understood as representing all the nations like him. Thus, in Yosef’s dream, the moon refers to Yaakov. According to this understanding, the prophecy in Yosef’s dream was fulfilled. Rashi (See Rashi’s commentary to Bereishis 37:10.) explains that the moon in Yosef’s dream refers to Bilhah. That is incorrect, for as Ramban states, (See Ramban’s commentary to the above verse.) Bilhah and Zilpah had already died. (Ramban derives this from the verse (Bereishis 46:26.) that describes the 70 individuals who descended to Egypt with Yaakov. That verse mentions the individuals who descended “in addition to the wives of Yaakov’s sons.” Since the verse explicitly mentions “the wives of Yaakov’s sons” but makes no mention of Yaakov’s wives, it implies that although the wives of Yaakov’s sons descended to Egypt, Yaakov’s wives did not.) (Ramban is positing that Yaakov’s wives did not descend to Egypt with him because they were no longer alive.) Nevertheless, the prophecy of Yosef’s dream was fulfilled because the moon in the dream refers to Yaakov and not Bilhah. True, Yaakov protested to Yosef, “Will I and your mother come….” However, that was only to calm Yosef’s brothers, to reduce their jealousy by intimating that the dream was untrue because Yosef’s mother had already died. In truth, however, Yaakov knew that the dream referred to Esav and himself. We thus have support from Yosef’s dream for the concept that Yaakov is identified with the moon.

We have thus supported the thesis we sought to substantiate – that Yaakov and David resemble the moon. They are called small like the moon and personify its qualities. On this basis, an insight into the work of the liturgists who ordained (See Sofrim 20:2.) that after reciting the blessing for the sanctification of the moon, we recite בָּרוּךְ יוֹצְרֵךְ בָּרוּךְ עוֹשֵׂךְ בָּרוּךְ קוֹנֵךְ בָּרוּךְ בּוֹרְאֵךְ (“Blessed be He Who formed you; blessed be He Who made you; blessed be He Who brought you into being; blessed be He Who created you”). (The order in which these phrases are recited varies according to custom. The order cited by Tosfos Yom Tov is cited in Tashbetz Katan (responsum 220) and by Rav David Avudraham. Both Tashbetz Katan and Avudraham highlight the association with Yaakov. ) The first letters of the descriptive terms for God mentioned here spell out יעקב – Yaakov. It is as if the verse is saying that God created the moon with these four letters that spell out the name Yaakov. The name Yaakov reflects our patriarch Yaakov’s fundamental nature, like all the names that God brought about within the world, (See p. 108 above) which are not arbitrary like the names given by common people. Similarly, the nature of the moon is reflected by these letters which form the name Yaakov, for the nature of the two are the same. (See Bach (Orach Chayim 426), who makes similar statements. See also Tikkunei Zohar, Tikkun 18.) For similar reasons, the phrase, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” is recited after the blessing for the sanctification of the moon. In this phrase, David is described as “King of Israel,” to emphasize that he is ”King of Israel” and not “King of Esav” and the like, who are identified with the sun. David is also described as “alive and enduring,” for King David’s nature resembles that of the moon. Seeing the moon’s renewal teaches us that David is still “alive and enduring” like the moon that can be seen at present, and he also will be renewed as the moon is renewed. The process of renewal is reflected in Yechezkel’s prophecy of the future, in which he states, (Yechezkel 37:24.) “My servant David will be king over them.” Yechezkel then emphasizes the matter by repeating, (Ibid. 37:25. ) “My servant David will be prince over them forever.” This concept substantiates Ibn Ezra’s interpretation of the phrase, “They are a faithful witness in the sky, eternally true.” The term selah, translated as “eternally true,” refers to the Ultimate Future, when the moon will be renewed in a complete sense. The expression, “David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring,” was derived from the words of our Holy Teacher Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi, who told Rabbi Chiya: (Rosh HaShanah 25a.) “Go to Ein Tav. (Ein Tav is the name of a place.) Sanctify the moon there and send me the message, ‘David, King of Israel, is alive and enduring’ as a sign that you did so.” Rashi explains that Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi chose this message because “David King of Israel is described with the analogy of the moon as it is written, ‘His throne is like the sun before Me. Like the moon, his line will be established forever.’”

Joseph, because he merited to the level of ‘the Righteous-One’, (Yesod) the ‘life-force (ḥaiy) (18) of the worlds’, through which one is required to worship with all the sephirot – towards the Shekhinah – he merited this dream. It is this that is written: (Gen. 37:9) ... and behold, the sun and the moon... etc.

[3] Another interpretation: And she vowed a vow, and said, "If you will see me, then you will see that I am barren, and Zion is barren, as it is said, "Sing, O barren one" (Isaiah 54:1). If you see me, then you will also see Zion, and remember me, for me, and do not forget your truth, for Zion. There are seven barren ones corresponding to the seven days of creation. The first is Sarah, as it is written, "And Sarai was barren" (Genesis 11:30), corresponding to the first day. And what was created on the first day? Heaven and Earth, which belong to this purchase by the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said, "Blessed is Avram to G-d on High, Possessor of heaven and earth" [Rashi: having acquired them by creating them] (Genesis 14:19). The second is Rebecca, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), corresponding to the second day. And what was created on the second day? The firmament, as it is said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate between water and water" (Genesis 1:6). Rebecca also gave birth to two sons, Jacob and Esau, as it is said, "And I will separate you from the peoples" (Leviticus 20:26). The third is Leah, as it is said, "And the Lord saw that Leah was hated, and He opened her womb" (Genesis 29:31), corresponding to the third day. And what was created on the third day? Vegetation, as it is said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation" (Genesis 1:11). And Reuben, the son of Leah, built, as it is said, "And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest" (Genesis 30:14). The fourth is Rachel, corresponding to the fourth day. And what was created on the fourth day? The sun, moon, stars, and constellations, as it is said, "And God said, 'Let there be lights'" (Genesis 1:14). And Joseph, the son of Rachel, stood as her offspring, and they bowed down to him, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me" (Genesis 37:9). The fifth corresponds to Thursday, and what was created on Thursday? Birds that fly in the air (Genesis 1:20). And so was Samuel, the son of Hannah, like a bird flying from place to place and from country to country, and eventually returning to his nest. And so was Samuel involved in the affairs of Israel, going to all places, as it is said, "And he used to go yearly on circuit to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpah, and he judged Israel in all these places" And his return was to Ramah, for there was his home. (1 Samuel 7:16-17) The sixth corresponds to the Hazzelelponith, the mother of Samson, as it is written: "And their sister (Hazzelelponith) [Hazzelelponi]"(1 Chronicles 4:3) . What was created on the sixth day? Man, and what happened to man? He died by the hand of his wife, as it is written: "And to Adam He said... for from the tree... you shall surely die" (Genesis 3:17), and Samson, too, died at the hands of his wife, as it is written: "And he loved a woman in the valley of Sorek, and her name was Delilah" (Judges 16:4). The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes (Judges 16:21). The seventh corresponds to Zion, as it is written: "And on the seventh day He rested" (Exodus 20:11). And Zion is my resting place forever (Psalm 132:14). Therefore, Isaiah said: "Sing, O barren one, you who did not bear" (Isaiah 54:1).

[3] Another interpretation: "And Jacob saw" Like it is said in scriptures: that he said "Who commands the sun not to shine" and to consume (Job 9:7).Indeed, all of Job's wisdom - does he not know that if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to command the sun, moon, and stars not to shine, they would not shine, except for Jacob and his sons who are compared to the sun, moon, and stars, as it is said, "And behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me" (Genesis 37:9). Joseph was separated from his father for twenty-two years, and the Divine spirit was withdrawn from Jacob and his sons, and he was not far from them except for three days, and they did not know that he was in Egypt. Before that, great prophets were Jacob and his sons. If you wish to know, when Joseph related his dreams to them, what did they say to him? "Are you really going to be a king and rule over us?" (Genesis 37:8). And when he was sold, they did not know where he was. Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say this and why did He do it? In order that the prophets should not become haughty, He weakened their power and showed them that they were nothing. This is also the way Moses, the greatest of the prophets, was tested, as it is said, "The matter that is too difficult for you, you shall bring to me" (Deuteronomy 1:17). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "You can solve a difficult problem? I will test you." When the case of the daughters of Zelophehad came before him, he began to falter, not knowing what to say. He only said, "And Moses brought their case before the Lord" (Numbers 27:5). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "Moses, did you not say, 'The matter that is too difficult for you'? Behold, the women know something that you do not know, as it is said, 'So are the daughters of Zelophehad speaking'" (Numbers 27:7). The women argued more eloquently than you did. Even though Samuel was as respected as Moses, when he said to Saul "I am the one who sees" (1 Samuel 9:19), the Lord said to him, "Tomorrow I will show you if you really see, as it is written, 'Fill your horn with oil' (1 Samuel 16:1)." As soon as he went and saw Eliab, the Lord said to him, "You are the one who said 'I see,' but you did not see, as it is written, 'Do not look at his appearance' (1 Samuel 16:7). Why does one who chips away at a stone finish it? (Job 9:7). Even Elisha, a great man, accomplished double the miracles that Elijah did, as it is written, "Please let there be a double portion of your spirit upon me" (2 Kings 2:9). And there came a moment when he knew nothing, when he saw the Shunammite woman coming to him, he said to Gehazi, "Please run to meet her and ask her, 'Are you well? Is your husband well? Is your child well?'" (2 Kings 4:26). He did not know that the child had died. Eventually, he felt something and said to Gehazi, "Let her be, for her soul is bitter within her, and the Lord has hidden it from me and has not told me" (2 Kings 4:27). Thus, you have learned that everything is from the Almighty - if He wants people to see, they will see, and if He wants them to hear, they will hear, as it is written, "The ear that hears and the eye that sees - the Lord has made them both" (Proverbs 20:12). Therefore, it is said, "He who says to the deaf, etc." (Proverbs 27:14).

Chapter (72) 73: Torah [1] "And the El Shaddai grant you mercy" (Genesis 43:14). As it is written in scriptures: Knowledge [of escape from You] is concealed from me. It is too formidable. I cannot know it. (Psalm 139:6). What is the meaning of "extraordinary level of understanding beyond my grasp"? It refers to something that is difficult for a person to comprehend, as it says, "If there arise among you a matter too hard for judgment" (Deuteronomy 17:8). Jacob said, "I cannot understand this matter." God promised Abraham that he would have twelve tribes, as it says, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be" (Genesis 15:5). Just as there are twelve constellations in the heavens that govern the world, so too I will establish twelve tribes from you that will govern the world, as it is said, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Ishmael was born and he begot twelve princes, as it is said, "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren" (Genesis 16:12), Abraham thought that these were the twelve tribes. But God said to him, "No, not those that you think. Sarah will bear a son for you" (Genesis 17:19), as it is said, "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac" (Genesis 21:12). It is through Isaac that your seed will be called (Genesis 21:12), as I said to you, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Isaac married Rebecca and she was found to be barren, he began to question how the promise that God made to Abraham could be fulfilled, as she was barren, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), and the children struggled within her (Genesis 25:22). "I'm sorry," she began, "if that's the case, I apologize to one another and "She went to inquire of יהוה," (Genesis 25:22), went to the study hall of Shem, and the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your body' (Genesis 25:23). Why did she say why is it? (Genesis 25:22), "this" is numerically equivalent to 12. And God said to her [Sarah], "What you think is not so, but there are two nations in your womb." When Jacob stood up and went out to Laban, Isaac called him and said to him, "Let it be known that the Lord is establishing twelve tribes from you," as it is said, "Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, 'Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there of the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother. And may God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a congregation of peoples; and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your descendants with you" (Genesis 28:1-4). The blessing that He blessed Abraham with, saying, "Look up now" (Genesis 15:5), is fulfilled through you. And once Jacob went and took wives and fathered twelve tribes, as it says, "And the sons of Jacob were twelve" (Genesis 35:22), Joseph began to see hints of it in his dream, saying, "Behold, I have dreamed a dream" (Genesis 37:9). Jacob began to keep watch over his father's words, and his father kept the matter (Genesis 37:11). And when Joseph was sold and Simeon was bound and Benjamin was brought to take revenge, Jacob began to cry out, "Me? What do I know? I thought that from my fathers I would establish twelve tribes, but I am dwindling and going down," as it says, "Joseph is gone" (Genesis 42:36). Everything that the old man promised was fulfilled, and yet I am decreasing and going down. "How incomprehensible is this to me," as it says, "I do not know what to say to you, but one thing remains in my hand, the blessing that my father blessed me with, saying, 'And Almighty God bless you'" (Genesis 28:3).

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

“He encountered the place” – he sought to pass, but the entire world became a barrier of sorts before him. (So he could not continue on his way.) “Because the sun had set” – the Rabbis say: “Because the sun had set” – it teaches that the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set not at its proper time, in order to speak with Jacob privately. This is analogous to a king’s friend who would come to him on occasion. The king said: ‘Extinguish the lamps, extinguish the lanterns, as I wish to speak with my friend privately.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set not at its proper time, in order to speak with Jacob privately. Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Ḥanin of Tzippori: He heard the voices of the ministering angels saying: ‘The sun has arrived, the sun has arrived.’ (This was a reference to the fact that Jacob had come.) When Joseph said: “Behold, the sun and the moon” (Genesis 37:9), Jacob said: ‘Who revealed to him that My name is “sun”?’ Those two hours that the Holy One blessed be He caused the orb of the sun to set when he left his father’s house, when did He restore them? It was when he returned to his father’s house. That is what is written: “The sun rose for him” (Genesis 32:32). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You are a model for your descendants; just as you, when you departed, I caused the sun to set, and upon your return, I restored the orb of the sun for you, so, your descendants, upon their departure: “The one who bore seven is miserable…[her sun set while still day]” (Jeremiah 15:9), and upon their return: “But the [sun of righteousness] will shine for those who fear My name…”’ (Malachi 3:20).

“And to rule during the day and at night, and to divide between the light and the darkness, and God saw that it was good” (Genesis 1:18). “And to rule during the day and at night” – Rabbi Ilfa said: If this is referring to the lights, is it not already stated: “The greater light to rule the day”? Genesis 1:16). Why, then, does the verse state: “And to rule during the day and at night”? Rather, it is referring to the righteous, who exert control over the body that was created to illuminate during the day and the body that was created to illuminate at night. That is what is written: “The sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance against their enemies. Is it not written in the book of the upright?” (Joshua 10:13). What is the book of the upright? It is the book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (Genesis.) Why is it called the book of the upright? It is as it is written: “Let me die the death of the upright” (Numbers 23:10). (Where “upright” alludes to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.) Rabbi Ḥalafta applied it [this lesson] to here: “And to rule during the day and at night.” (As Rabbi Ilfa just said.) Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel applied it to the end of the book: “However, his younger brother [Ephraim] will be greater than he [Manasseh]” (Genesis 48:19). Is it possible to say this? (Manasseh’s descendants were more numerous than those of Ephraim (Numbers 26:34–37).) Rather, this refers Joshua, who would descend from him [Ephraim], who would cause the orbs of the sun and the moon, which rule from one end of the world to the other, to stand still. (And in that sense Ephraim was greater than Manasseh.) Rabbi Ḥanan in the name of Shmuel applied it to the end of the Torah, [where it is said of Joseph]: “A firstborn bull is his majesty…[he will gore the peoples together at the ends of the earth]” (Deuteronomy 33:17). Is it possible? (Is it possible that a king would arise from Joseph that would defeat kings throughout the world? No such king is recorded.) Rather, this is Joshua, who would descend from him, and who would cause the orbs of the sun and the moon, which rule from one end of the world to the other, to stand still. (Thereby becoming known to everyone in the world. ) This is as Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: The book of Deuteronomy was like a standard for Joshua. When the Holy One blessed be He appeared to him, he found him sitting with the book of Deuteronomy in his hand. He said to him: ‘“Be strong” Joshua, “be courageous” Joshua, “this book of the Torah shall not depart…”’ (Joshua 1:6–8). He took him and showed him to the orb of the sun. He [Joshua] said to it: ‘Just as I have not been still from [reading] this [book], so, you shall stand still before me.’ Thereupon, “The sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: He said to it: ‘Wayward slave, are you not the acquired possession of my ancestor [Joseph]? Did my ancestor not see you in a dream: “Behold, the sun and the moon…[were prostrating themselves to me]”?’ (Genesis 37:9). Thereupon, “the sun stood still, and the moon [stopped].”

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

“Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hand and said: Let us not smite him mortally” (Genesis 37:21). “Reuben heard, and delivered him” – where had he been? (The fact that he heard implies that he was not there during the initial discussion and heard about it after the fact (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yosei said: Each one of them would serve his father on his day, and that day was Reuben’s day. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Reuben said: I am the firstborn, and the blame will be attributed only to me. The Rabbis say: Reuben said: He enumerates me with my brothers; shall I not rescue him? I was under the impression that I had been banished because of that incident, (The incident of Reuben and Bilha; see Genesis 35:22. ) and he enumerates me with my brothers, As it is stated: “And eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9) – shall I not rescue him? The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You were the first to engage in the saving of lives; as you live, they will designate cities of refuge first only within your boundaries.’ That is what is written: “Betzer in the wilderness…[for the Reubenites]” (Deuteronomy 4:43).

“Joseph saw that his father was placing his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, and it displeased him; he supported his father’s hand, to remove it from the head of Ephraim to the head of Manasseh” (Genesis 48:17). “Joseph saw that his father was placing…” – Rabbi Berekhya said: The hand that overcame one-third of the world, (See Bereshit Rabba 68:12.) you are seeking to move it? “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father, as this is the firstborn; place your right hand upon his head. His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too will become a people, and he too will be great; however, his younger brother will be greater than he, and his descendants will be the plenitude of nations” (Genesis 48:18–19). “Joseph said to his father: Not so, my father.… His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know” – I know the incident of Reuben and Bilha and the incident of Judah and Tamar; (I know that they all acted with pure intentions (Yefe To’ar).) if matters that were not revealed to you were revealed to me, matters that were revealed to you, all the more so. “He too will become a people, and he too will be great” – is it possible that it will be so? (The continuation of the verse states that Ephraim would be “the plenitude of nations.” The midrash asks: Is it possible that one tribe would be so numerous?) Rather, this is Joshua, who stopped the orb of the sun and the moon, which have dominion from one end of the world to the other end. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Bad slave, are you not the purchase of my father… (Joshua said to the sun: ‘You prostrated yourself to my father Joseph in his dream; therefore you must obey me’ (see Bereshit Rabba 84:11). )

R. Berachia said: "There may be a dream which thought in part fulfilled, yet is impossible of being entirely fulfilled. We can derive it from Joseph, for it is written (Gen. 37, 9.) The sun and the moon and the eleven start. — Shall we indeed come, I and thy mother, and thy brothers (Ib. b). And at that time his mother was dead." R. Levi said: "A man should look forward to the realization of a good dream even for as long as twenty-two years; as it is written (Gen. 37, 2.) These are the generations of Jacob, Joseph was seventeen years old [when he had the dreams], and it is written also (Ib. 41, 46.) And Joseph was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh. From seventeen to thirty are thirteen years, to which add the seven years of plenty and the two years of famine, will make the total of twenty-two years." R. Huna said: "To a good man bad dreams are shown, and to a bad man good dreams." We have also a Baraitha to the same effect: "During all the years of David he never dreamed a good dream, and during all the years of Achitophel he never dreamed a bad dream." R. Bizna b. Zabda, in the name of R. Akiba, who spoke in the name of R. Panda, who, in turn, spoke in the name of R. Nachum, who quoted R. Birim, said: "A venerable man by the name of R. Bana'ah had told him there were twenty-four places in Jerusalem for the interpretation of dreams; that once he had a dream and went to each one of these places; each one gave a different interpretation and each was fulfilled." This establishes what is written: "Every dream is in accord with its interpretation." Is this a passage? Yes, as R. Elazar said, for R. Elazar said: "Whence do we learn that every dream is realized according to its interpretation? It is written (Gen. 41, 13.) And just as he interpreted it, so it was."

(Lev. 17:1 & 3:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING…. IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP. The Holy Spirit proclaims (in Mal. 1:11): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING [MY NAME SHALL BE GREAT AMONG THE GENTILES AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, EVEN A PURE OBLATION]. (Tanh., Lev. 6:9.) From the time that the sun rises until it sets, the praise (Qillus. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”).) of the Holy One never ceases from its mouth, as stated (in Ps. 113:3): FROM THE RISING OF THE SUN TO ITS SETTING, THE NAME OF THE LORD IS PRAISED. And you find it so when Joshua waged war with Gibeon. What is written there (in Josh. 10:12)? THEN JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD…: O SUN, BE QUIET (dom) (Although dom can mean “stand still”, it commonly means, “be quiet” in the sense of “be silent.” It is this latter sense which the midrash is stressing here.) AT GIBEON. < When > Joshua wanted to silence the sun, he did not say to it: "O Sun, stand still ('amod) at Gibeon," but BE QUIET (dom). Why did he say; BE QUIET? Because every hour that it is traveling, it is praising the Holy One; and as long as it praises < the Holy One >, it has the power to travel < its course >. Joshua therefore told it to be silent, as stated (ibid.): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: Is someone younger saying, BE QUIET, to someone older? I was created on the fourth < day >, while human beings were created on the sixth; so are you saying, BE QUIET, to me? Joshua said to < the sun >: When a young free person has an elderly slave, does he not say to him: Be silent? In the case of our father Abraham, the Holy One delivered (rt.: PNH) heaven and earth to him, as stated (in Gen. 14:19): THEN HE BLESSED HIM, AND SAID: BLESSED BE ABRAM OF GOD MOST HIGH, ACQUIRER (rt.: PNH) (Apart from the context in the midrash, a traditional biblical translation would read: CREATOR.) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. And not only that, but you bowed down to Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. [So would you speak against me?] Ergo (in Josh. 10:12): O SUN, BE QUIET AT GIBEON. The sun said to Joshua: And so are you decreeing over me that I am to be quiet? He said to it: Yes. It said to him: Then who will speak the praise of the Holy One? You be quiet, and I will speak the praise of the Holy One, as stated (in Josh. 10:12): THEN (az) JOSHUA SPOKE TO THE LORD. Now az can only be a hymn, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:1): MOSES SANG THEN (az). (THEN is understood as the object of the verb SANG. See above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:32; Exod. 4:12.) (Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Ammi asked R. Samuel bar Nahman: Is it correct that IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE IS OFFERED TO MY NAME? (See Numb. R. 13:4.) The Torah warns (in Deut. 12:13–14): TAKE HEED THAT YOU DO NOT OFFER UP YOUR BURNT OFFERINGS IN ANY PLACE THAT YOU SEE, BUT ONLY IN THE PLACE THAT < THE LORD > WILL CHOOSE…. So also it says (in Lev. 17:3–4): IF ANY SINGLE PERSON FROM THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL SLAUGHTERS AN OX, A LAMB, OR A GOAT IN THE CAMP…, AND DOES NOT BRING IT UNTO THE ENTRANCE OF THE TENT OF MEETING…, < BLOODGUILT SHALL BE IMPUTED TO THAT PERSON >. But < there seems to be a contradiction when > the prophet says (in Mal. 1:11): AND IN EVERY PLACE INCENSE (muqtar) IS OFFERED TO MY NAME, < EVEN A PURE OBLATION >. R. Samuel bar Nahman said to him (i.e., to R. Ammi): What is A PURE OBLATION (minhah) which is burned (muqtar) IN EVERY PLACE and offered to the name of the Holy One? (The Hebrew wording of this question reproduces almost exactly the wording in Mal. 1:11.) This is the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah). INCENSE (muqtar) can only be the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah), since it is stated (in Ps. 141:2): LET MY PRAYER BE SET FORTH AS THE INCENSE BEFORE YOU…. [It also says] (in I Kings 18:36): AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THE TIME OF THE OFFERING OF THE OBLATION (minhah), < THE PROPHET > ELIJAH DREW NEAR < AND SAID >…. (Since Elijah carried out this minhah on mount Carmel, it could not have been a temple sacrifice. Thus here also minhah must refer to the afternoon service.)

(Ibid., cont.:) THEY FELL TO THE GROUND BEFORE HIM to fulfill that which was stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.

[(Gen. 42:1:) THEN JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS GRAIN IN EGYPT.] This text is related (to Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE < AND SEALS UP THE STARS >. (Gen. R. 91:1.) {It simply tells about Jacob and his children, since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.} Look at all Job's wisdom! Now who does not know that, if the Holy One tells the sun or the stars not to shine, they do not shine, as stated (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE … ? It simply tells about Jacob and his children, [since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME]. (Job 9:7:) THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. For the twenty-two years that Joseph stayed away from his brothers in Egypt, the Holy Spirit was hidden from Jacob and his children. He was no farther from them than a journey of four or five days; but they did not know that he was in Egypt. Now Jacob and his children had previously been great prophets. Do you want to understand? When Joseph had told them his dream, what did he say (in Gen. 37:10)? ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN < TO THE GROUND FOR YOU > ? Then, when he had been sold, they did not know where he was. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. Why so? So that the prophets would not be boastful. The Holy One therefore made his power known to them to show them that they were nothing. And so you find with the greatest of the prophets (i.e., Moses). Because he had said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU SHALL BRING UNTO ME >…. (Sifre to Deut. 1:17 (17); Sanh. 8a.) The Holy One said to him: Are you able to interpret a difficult case? By your life, I am showing you! So, when the affair of the daughters of Zelophehad arrived, he began to have difficulties with it. When he did not know what to say, he brought their cause before the LORD, as stated (in Numb. 27:5): THEN MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE BEFORE THE LORD. The Holy One said to him: Was it not you who said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU ARE TO BRING UNTO ME > … ? See, you do not know what the women know. (Numb. 27:7:) THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK WHAT IS RIGHT. These women have judged better than you. And so also in the case of Samuel, when he was measured against Moses and Aaron. Because he had said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER, the Holy One said to him: You have said: I AM THE SEER! By your life, tomorrow I am showing you whether you are a seer. Thus it is stated (in I Sam. 16:1): FILL YOUR HORN WITH OIL AND GO; {COME} [I AM SENDING YOU] UNTO JESSE THE BETHLEHEMITE BECAUSE I HAVE CHOSEN A KING FOR MYSELF AMONG HIS SONS. When he had gone, what is written (in I Sam. 16:6)? AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE HAD COME, THAT HE SAW ELIAB AND SAID: SURELY THE LORD'S ANOINTED IS STANDING BEFORE HIM. The Holy One said to him: Are you the one who said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER? (I Sam. 16:7:) DO NOT LOOK UPON HIS APPEARANCE…. And so also in the case of Jacob [and his children], they were prophets and sages, and nothing was hidden from them. When Joseph was sold, they did not know about him until the Holy One [wanted] < them to know >. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE….

Let our master instruct us further: What is the difference between the dreams of the righteous and the dreams of the wicked? The dreams of the wicked are neither in the heavens nor on the earth. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 41:1): PHARAOH DREAMED, AND THERE HE WAS STANDING ON THE NILE. So also it is written of Nebuchadnezzar (in Dan. 4:2): {IT WAS} [I SAW] A DREAM, AND IT MADE ME AFRAID, for he was neither on the earth nor in the heavens (cf. vss. 7-8). However, the dreams of the righteous are < both > in the heavens and on the earth. You therefore find that Joseph said to his brothers (in Gen. 37:7): HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES: Ergo, < his dreams were > on the earth. Where is it shown that they were also in heaven? Where it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME. So also it was in the case of our father Jacob (according to Gen. 28:12): THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER [PLACED ON EARTH WITH ITS TOP REACHING TO THE HEAVENS. Ergo, < his dream was both > in the heavens and on the earth].

(Lev. 17:1, 3:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, ‘Speak to Aaron saying, “…. If any single person from the House of Israel slaughters.”’” The holy spirit proclaims (in Mal. 1:11), “From the rising of the sun to its setting, My name shall be great among the gentiles.” From the time that the sun rises until it sets, the praise (Qillus. Cf. the Greek, kalos (“beautiful”).) of the Holy One, blessed be He, never ceases from its mouth, as stated (in Ps. 113:3), “From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord is praised.” And you find it so when Joshua waged war with Gibeon. What is written there (in Josh. 10:12)? “Then Joshua spoke to the Lord…, ‘O sun, be quiet (dom) (Although dom can mean “stand still”, it commonly means, “be quiet” in the sense of “be silent.” It is this latter sense which the midrash is stressing here.) at Gibeon.’” [When] Joshua wanted to silence the sun, he did not say to it, "O sun, stand still ('amod) at Gibeon," but “Be quiet (dom).” Why did he say, “Be quiet?” Because every hour that it is traveling, it is praising the Holy One, blessed be He; and as long as it praises [the Holy One, blessed be He], it has the power to travel [its course]. Joshua therefore told it to be silent, as stated (ibid.), “O sun, be quiet at Gibeon.” The sun said to Joshua, “May someone younger be saying, ‘Be quiet,’ to someone older? I was created on the fourth [day], while human beings were created on the sixth; and are you saying, ‘Be quiet,’ to me?” Joshua said to [the sun], “When a young free person has an elderly slave, does he not say to him, ‘Be silent?’ In the case of our father Abraham, the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered (rt.: pnh) heaven and earth to him, as stated (in Gen. 14:19), ‘Then he blessed him, and said, “Blessed be Abram of God most high, acquirer (rt.: pnh) (Apart from the context in the midrash, a traditional biblical translation would read: CREATOR.) of heaven and earth.”’ And not only that, but you bowed down to Joseph, as stated (in Gen. 37:9), ‘here were the sun, the moon, [and eleven stars bowing down to me.’ So would you speak against me?]” Ergo (in Josh. 10:12), “O sun, be quiet at Gibeon.” The sun said to Joshua, “And so are you decreeing over me that I am to be quiet?” He said to it, “Yes.” It said to him, “Then who will speak the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He?“ He said to him, “You be quiet, and I will speak the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He,” as stated (in Josh. 10:12), “Then (az) Joshua spoke to the Lord.” Now az can only be a hymn, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:1), “Moses sang then (az).” (THEN is understood as the object of the verb SANG. See Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:32; Exod. 4:12.) (Mal. 1:11:) “And in every place incense is offered to My name, even a pure oblation.” R. Ammi asked R. Samuel bar Nahman, “Is it correct that ‘In every place incense is offered to My name, even a pure oblation?’ (See Numb. R. 13:4.) The Torah warns (in Deut. 12:13-14), ‘Take heed that you do not offer up your burnt offerings in any place that you see. But only in the place that [the Lord] will choose….’ So also it says (in Lev. 17:3-4) ‘If any single person from the House of Israel slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat in the camp…. And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting…, [bloodguilt shall be imputed to that person.’ So how can you] say (in Mal. 1:11), ‘and in every place incense (muqtar) is offered to My name, [even a pure oblation]?’” R. Samuel bar Nahman said to him (i.e., to R. Ammi), “What is a pure oblation (minhah) which is burned (muqtar) in every place and offered to the name of the Holy One, blessed be He? (The Hebrew wording of this question reproduces almost exactly the wording in Mal. 1:11.) This is the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah). Incense (muqtar) can only be the prayer of the afternoon service (minhah), since it is stated (in Ps. 141:2), ‘Let my prayer be set forth as the incense before you….’ [It also says] (in I Kings 18:36), ‘And it came to pass at the time of the offering of the oblation (minhah), Elijah drew near.’”

And Judah and his brothers came to Joseph’s house (Gen. 44:14). Why did they go to Joseph’s house? Did he not leave each day to preside at court? He had said to himself: “I will not disgrace my brothers before the Egyptians.” And they fell before him on the ground…. “Behold, we are my lord’s bondsmen” (ibid., v. 14–16). This fulfilled the verse And behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me (ibid. 37:9). Whereupon Joseph said to them: What deed is this that ye have done? Know ye not that such a man as I will indeed divine (ibid. 44:15). And he said to them also: “I will tell you why this youth stole it. He did so in order to divine through it and learn the whereabouts of his brother.” And Judah said: “What shall we say unto my lord? What shall we speak? Or how shall we clear ourselves?” (ibid., v. 16). What shall we say concerning the first pieces of silver (that were placed in their sacks by the steward)? How shall we speak concerning the second pieces of silver? How shall we clear ourselves in the matter of the cup? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants (ibid.). Do not read the phrase as matza (“found out”) but as motza (“revealed”).

Hallelujah, praise the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the heights. Who are in the heavens? They are the angels who serve Him. Praise Him, all His angels. Just as there are many armies on earth, so too are there in heaven. (Genesis 2:4) These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all His hosts." (Psalm 103:21)And who are His hosts who do His will? As it is said, "Bless the Lord, all His hosts." Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all His hosts." Praise Him, sun and moon. And who are the sun and moon? They are the fathers and mothers who rule with the sun and moon. As it is said, "And behold the sun and the moon." (Bereshit 37:9) Praise Him, all the stars of light. And who are the stars of light? They are the righteous, as it is said, "And those who lead the many to righteousness [shall be] like the stars forever and ever." Therefore, it is said, "Praise Him, all the stars of light." From here you learn that each one of them has a star in the heavens, and according to their deeds, so does their star shine. Therefore, it is said, "Praise them, whose stars shine." (Daniel 12:3) Praise the heavens of heavens. From here you learn that they are only rain (in the name of Radel - the 3rd heaven). As it says (1 Kings 8:27), "Behold, the heavens and the highest heaven." Therefore it is said, "Praise Him," etc. These are the waters that God created in the beginning, as it says (Genesis 1:8), "And God called the firmament Heaven." Ask for water. "Let them praise the name of the Lord," etc. They did not come before the Holy One, blessed be He, when He created them, as it says (Genesis 2:4), "On the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." And it is written (Exodus 20:11), "For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth." They did not come before the Holy One, blessed be He, but He commanded and they were created by themselves. Therefore it is said, "Let them praise the name of the Lord," because they were created to praise Him. And He established them forever with an ordinance that will not pass away. And what is this ordinance that He gave? He said to them (Genesis 1:6), "Let there be a firmament," etc. From that day on they did not move. God created them to take pleasure in them, but because of Adam's sin, the earth was cursed, as it says (Genesis 3:17), "Cursed be the ground," etc. Cain killed Abel, and God said to him (Genesis 4:9), "Where is Abel your brother?" (Genesis 4:10), "The voice of your brother's blood is crying out to Me from the ground." (Genesis 4:12), "You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth." And God did not allow Himself to take pleasure in His creations.

Bereshit Rabbah 68,10, quotes Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Chanin of Tzipporin as offering a strange comment on 28,11, where the Torah reports Jacob camping overnight in an open field, because the sun had set unexpectedly. He claims that Jacob had overheard the ministering angels saying: "The sun has set, the sun has set." When Joseph told his brothers and his father about the dream in which eleven stars, sun and moon bowed down to him (Genesis 37,9), Jacob proclaimed: "Who has told him that my name is "sun"?! This sounds very strange. Why should the fact that Jacob's name was שמש be considered a secret? Considering what I have written, this Midrash makes sense.

You are aware already that the masculine element is the predominating one. The male is the active element, the female element is responsive by nature. This is what Solomon referred to in Proverbs 19,2 when he wrote: גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב, “it is also not good for a person (soul) to lack knowledge.” He meant that the soul cannot attain its objective, its fulfillment, unless it possesses intelligence. There is no need to add that if this is true of the creatures in our “lower” terrestrial world this is certainly true of the world of the planets and the stars. In that part of the cosmos we also have male and female forces such as the sun being a masculine, active force, whereas the moon is responsive, feminine. This is why both of these forces appeared in Joseph’s dream (Genesis 37,9), i.e. the masculine and the feminine force in the middle part of the cosmos, the world of the planets and stars. Even in the celestial regions this division between masculine and feminine forces exists as it is the function of the soul to eventually return to G’d as a soul which has absorbed divine intelligence [as if the feminine נפש after it had become impregnated with the masculine שכל, intelligence, had achieved its purpose, Ed]. Both of the cherubs, which represented the male and female elements in the celestial spheres were constructed out of the pure gold of the kapporet, the lid. of the Ark, in a single piece, מקשה. This kapporet was an allusion to the throne of G’d the source of חכמה, wisdom. The word כפורת, of course, is derived from כפרה, atonement. A return of the soul to its origin is impossible unless atonement for sins committed while inside the body had first been obtained. Similarly, without knowledge of the Torah a return to its holy roots is also impossible as during its stay on earth the soul otherwise becomes contaminated by the body. We learn from this whole description of the construction of the Holy Ark that by means of knowledge of the Torah which is stored inside the Holy Ark the soul as well as the intelligence, both of which were “emanated” from celestial regions down to man on earth from their origin near the throne of the attribute כבוד will be able to regain their roots if they make prudent use of their potential. This is hinted at when the Torah describes the cherubs as סוככים בכנפיהם על הכפורת, “they shall have their wings spread out shielding the cover with their wings.”

והיו שמונה קרשים, “there shall be eight beams, etc.” Two of the eight beams overlapped with the beams forming the long sides of the Tabernacle, one at the southern end and one at the northern end. There were therefore six beams left which formed the western wall without any part of them serving as extensions of the long walls. This is what was meant by verse 22 ולירכתי המשכן תעשה ששה קרשים, “and for the end of the Tabernacle you are to construct 6 beams. This verse reveals a mystical dimension. Seeing that the Shechinah which is situated in the west is composed of 6 extremities, the west is referred to as ים in order to allude to this fact. The west is known as ים, “ocean” because the ocean is a collection point for all the waters just as the Shechinah is a collection point for all the directions of the globe from the farthest extremities. The order of the four geographical directions of the world in the celestial entourage, מרכבה, are: the three patriarchs of the world (Avraham Yitzchak and Yaakov), and David. South ranks first as Avraham was the first of the patriarchs, and it is written of him that Avraham journeyed southwards to the land of the south (Genesis 20,1). This is followed by north, as Yitzchak made a supreme effort at the time he was bound on the altar. This is followed by east seeing it is written of Yaakov that the sun shone for him (Genesis 32,32), and his son Joseph has also been compared to the sun (Genesis 37,9). Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,11) have said quoting Yaakov: “who told this one (Joseph) that my name is “sun?” West is the סוף, the end; it is the harp on which David played which used to play all by itself on occasion (Berachot 3). This direction was called ים, i.e. the sea known as ים האחרון, the westernmost sea. In order to allude to these four great men the directions of the earth have been identified with these people through their names.

And a mockery. As the Targum [Yonoson rendered], ולשועי, [i.e.,] they will tell about the evils that have befallen them and will scoff at them, as in, “ויספר [=and he told,” which the Targum rendered] ואשתעי. The expression “שנינה” is also an expression of speech as it is written [in Scriptures], “and you shall repeat them [ושננתם] to your children.”

It seems to be agreed that the Signs are mentioned in Job 38:32 under the name of the Mazzaroth (a word copied without translation by the LXX), and many modern scholars have thought that Gen. 37:9 actually refers to them, some indeed finding traces of them in the blessing of Jacob in ch. 49. Whether this is so or not, Philo naturally took the words so, but the tone of that passage, where Joseph’s presumption is condemned, is very different from this, where the twelve tribes are the earthly counterpart of the twelve great heavenly bodies. It would be interesting to know how far the idea was current in Philo’s time. An article by Feuchtwanger, in Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1915, pp. 241–267, gives an account of the place held by the Zodiac in Rabbinical tradition, but mostly in later times, and does not dwell much upon its relation to the tribes and their founders. One point mentioned (also by the Jewish Encyclopaedia, s.v. Zodiac) is the tradition that each of the tribes had one of the Signs on its banner.

On a similar note, Rabbi Berekhya said: Even though part of a dream is fulfilled, all of it is not fulfilled. From where do we derive this? From the story of Joseph’s dream, as it is written: “And he said: Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream: and, behold, the sun and the moon

and eleven stars bowed down to me” (Genesis 37:9), and at that time his mother was no longer alive. According to the interpretation of the dream, the moon symbolizes Joseph’s mother. Even this dream that was ultimately fulfilled contained an element that was not fulfilled.

He had another dream and told it to his brothers. He said, Behold! I dreamed another dream. The sun, the moon, and eleven stars were prostrating themselves to me.

And he dreamed again another dream, and told it to his brothers, and said, Behold, I have dreamed yet a dream, and lo, the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars, bowed to me.

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” in spite of his father’s obvious displeasure, he carefully retained this dream in his memory, awaiting future developments if any. He displayed anger only in order to minimise the jealousy of Joseph by his brothers [and because of his arrogance in telling about such dreams. Ed.]

AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM. When the word ga’ar (rebuked) is followed by a bet it means to rebuke. (Our verse reads va-yigar bo aviv (and his father rebuked him). In our verse ga’ar thus precedes a bet and henceforth is to be translated as rebuked.) When it is not followed by a bet it means to destroy. Compare, Behold, I will destroy (go’er) the seed for your hurt (Mal. 2:3). On the other hand, it is possible that the word go’er is used metaphorically in the aforementioned verse, its meaning being God will rebuke the seed and it will become frightened and not arise out of the ground. (In other words the term ga’ar always means to rebuke.)

I AND THY MOTHER. Thy mother refers to Bilhah his mother’s handmaiden who raised him. (Rachel was dead by then.)

ויגער בו אביו, His father rebuked him, etc. He did so in order to remove the brothers' hatred towards him. He contradicted the interpretation of the dream by questioning how his father and mother could possibly bow down to Joseph? He implied that the sons of Jacob would not attain greatness through the Gentiles rather than through their father. Since the idea that his father would bow down to him was ludicrous, the brothers had no cause to worry. Jacob personally did not discount the dream, however.

ויגער בו אביו, “his father rebuked him;” Yaakov wanted to nullify the meaning of the dream in the presence of Joseph’s brothers; this is why he demonstrated anger in order to divert their anger from him and said:

הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך, “do you really expect me and your brothers to come and bow down before you?” Seeing that Joseph’s mother was already dead, Yaakov wanted to demonstrate that the other parts of the dream could also not be taken seriously. Nonetheless, Yaakov took the dream far more seriously than he let on and that is why the Torah added: “his father kept careful track of the matter.” He knew that the dream was very significant and awaited its realisation at a future date. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,12 the Holy Spirit told Yaakov to remember the matter, i.e. as if the Torah had written שמור את הדבר, “remember the matter well!”

ויספר אל אביו, the reason why he told only this dream to his father was because his father appeared in that dream, whereas neither his father nor his mother had been featured in his other dreams.

אני ואמך, I and your mother? Just as the dream could not possibly relate to your mother who has died already, so it cannot very well relate to me either. Therefore, you would do well to dismiss this dream entirely. Our sages, on the other hand, learn from this dream that every dream no matter how accurately it foreshadows an event in the future, contains some element which is not going to come true. (Berachot 55)

AND HE RELATED IT TO HIS FATHER. He told his father of this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars, but not of the first one concerning the sheaves because he himself recognized its interpretation and knew that the sun alluded to his father, and his father rebuked him. (Ramban’s intent is to say that the father’s rebuke is proof that he knew that Joseph understood the meaning of the dream.) The meaning of the expression, And he related it to his father and to his brothers, is that he related it to them a second time, (Since it is already stated in Verse 9 that he related this dream concerning the sun, moon and stars to his brothers, it must mean here in Verse 10 that he related it to them a second time.) as he told it to his father in their presence, and his father rebuked him in order to dissipate their anger towards him. The meaning of the expression, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? is the same as, What is man that Thou shouldst take cognizance of him? (Psalms 144:3.) That is to say, “What is this dream? It is nothing that you should relate for it is nothing but idle talk.” Alternatively, the meaning of the rebuke may be: “How dare you dream such a dream? It is but your conceit and youth that bring up such matters in your heart,” just as it says concerning dreams, Thy thoughts came upon thy bed; (Daniel 2:29. Here understood literally: “The thoughts you entertained during the day came with you to bed, and you dreamed about them.”) And imaginings upon my bed. (Ibid., 4:2. Understood in the same sense as above.)

SHALL I AND THY MOTHER AND THY BRETHREN INDEED COME TO PROSTRATE OURSELVES TO THEE TO THE EARTH? “Is not your mother long since dead?” Jacob, however, was not aware that the matter alluded to Bilhah who had raised him as if she were his mother. From here, our Rabbis derived the principle that there is no dream that does not contain invalid matters. Jacob’s intention in pointing out the invalidity of the dream was to cause his sons to forget the matter so that they should not be envious of him because of it. Jacob said to Joseph: “Just as it is impossible for the dream to be fulfilled with respect to your mother, so is the remainder invalid.” Thus the language of Rashi. In my opinion, at the time when Jacob went down to Egypt, Bilhah and Zilpah had already died (See Ramban 46:15.) since, in enumerating the seventy souls that went down to Egypt, Scripture states, Besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, (Further, 46:26.) and it does not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives.” (Thus, there is proof that Bilhah had already died at the time Jacob went down to Egypt. So how then could Rashi say that the mother in the dream, symbolized by the moon, who was to bow before Joseph in Egypt, referred to Bilhah?) And if you say that because they were concubines Scripture does not want to say “besides Jacob’s sons’ wives and his concubines,” yet we find that they are referred to as his father’s wives. (Above, Verse 2. Why then does Scripture not say “besides Jacob’s wives and his sons’ wives?” Thus it is clear that they had already died.) Besides, it is unlikely that “the moon” in the dream alludes to his concubine. Instead, my opinion concerning the matter of the dream is that the sun is an allusion to Jacob, and the moon alludes to the children of his household and all his wives, which comprised Jacob’s seed. Thus, the moon alludes to the fact that all his seed will prostrate themselves to Joseph, these being all the seventy souls that issued from his loins, since they all prostrated themselves when they came before him. The eleven stars represent the brothers who bowed down before him separately, (This explains why the brothers are singled out from all of Jacob’s seed, alluded to by the moon.) before their father arrived, as it is written, And when Joseph came into the house, they brought him the present which was in their hand into the house, and prostrated themselves to him to the earth. (Further, 43:26.)

מה החלום הזה?, even if Joseph’s mother had still been alive, Yaakov would still have rebuked Joseph for having such a dream.

ויספר אל אביו ואל אחיו AND HE TOLD IT TO HIS FATHER AND TO HIS BRETHREN — After he had related it to his brothers (see 5:9) he again related it to his father in their presence.

ויגער בו AND HIS FATHER REBUKED HIM because he was arousing hatred against himself by relating the dream.

הבוא נבוא SHALL WE INDEED COME — “Is not your mother long since dead?” He did not, however, understand that the statement really alluded to Bilhah who had brought him up as though she were his own mother (Genesis Rabbah 84:11). Our Rabbis inferred from here that there is no dream but has some absurd incidents (Berakhot 55). Jacob’s intention in pointing out the absurdity of Joseph’s mother, who was dead, bowing down to him was to make his sons forget the whole matter so that they should not envy him, and on this account he said to him, “Shall we indeed come etc.” — meaning, just as it (the fulfillment of the dream) is impossible in the case of your mother so the remainder of the dream is absurd.

Die Brüder hatten diesen Traum zuerst gar nicht auf sich bezogen. Als sie aber den Vater ihn so deuten hörten, fingen sie auch an, daran zu glauben und beneideten ihn um die ihm bevorstehende Zukunft.

מה החלום הזה?, this is only a reflection of unworthy thoughts. It shows us that you plan to rule over us. Your nocturnal dreams reflect your thinking when you are awake.

After he had told it to his brothers he retold it to his father in their presence. You might ask: Why did Yoseif not tell the first dream to his father? The answer is: Yoseif knew that most dreams follow their verbal interpretation, and his brothers interpreted it for the good, so he did not want to tell it to his father. But his brothers did not interpret his second dream for him, as they realized he was telling them his dreams so they will make a good interpretation. Thus he had to tell it to his father so he will interpret it for him. His father did so, and rebuked him so that his brothers would not hate him. (Maharshal)

Because he was bringing hatred upon himself. I.e., Yoseif was bringing hatred upon himself. That is why Yaakov rebuked him — not because Yaakov did not want the dream to come true. For it is written in the next verse, “His father kept the matter in mind.” [See Rashi there.]

But he did not know that these things were referring to Bilhah who had raised him like his mother. You might ask: How does Rashi know that Yaakov did not know this? Perhaps Yaakov knew, but he questioned [the dream] for the reason Rashi had given before: that Yoseif should not bring hatred onto himself. Re’m asks [the question this way]: Regarding the explanation of “These things were referring to Bilhah,” Rashi says that Yaakov did not know. But had he known, he would not have said, “Has your mother not already died?” lest his sons realize [that his comment was just a trick]. Yet, regarding the explanation of “No dream is without meaningless things,” why did Yaakov not fear that his sons, too, might know this rule and thus say that his comment was just a trick? Maharshal answers: [In the first explanation,] had Yaakov known that these things were referring to Bilhah, his sons surely would have known too, because this is a matter grasped through reasoning. Saying, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” would not make them ignore the matter. But [in the second explanation,] it then says, “His father kept the matter in mind,” because Yaakov had an oral tradition that no dream is without meaningless things. His sons however, did not know this tradition.

However, our Sages learned from here that no dream is without meaningless things... Rashi is explaining why Yaakov questioned [the dream] and said, “Shall I, your mother and your brothers come...” Did he not know that no dream is without meaningless things? Perforce, [he said it] “To make his sons ignore...”

But Yaakov intended to make his sons ignore... I.e., our Sages hold that “your mother” must mean Yoseif’s true mother. However, “No dream is without meaningless things.”

He related it to his father and to his brothers. Unlike in the first dream, Jacob is represented in this dream. For this reason, Joseph also related the dream to his father. 3 And his father rebuked him, and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? This is certainly not a meaningful dream. Considering that the sun and the moon are metaphors for one’s parents, will I and your mother and your brothers come to prostrate ourselves to you to the earth? Surely we will not. Your mother is already dead.

ויספר אל אביו, “he told his father, etc.” He had not told his father about his first dream, seeing that he was certain that he understood the meaning of his dream. Seeing that the subject of his second dream concerned his father, he told him about it.

ואל אחיו, “and to his brothers.” After he had told this dream to his father, he told it to his brothers in the presence of his father. His father rebuked him [not because of its content, Ed.] but in order to deflect his brothers’ fury from him. Some commentators ask that seeing all dreams supposedly are influenced by the interpretation given to them, (Berachot 58) why was this dream fulfilled altogether, seeing that Yaakov had rejected the original interpretation as soon as he heard the dream in front of the brothers? They give a very forced answer, saying that seeing Joseph had already told the dream to his father previously, and at that time his father had not disagreed with the apparent interpretation, it was now too late to do anything about it. Personally, I do not think that the question has any merit at all. Rather, on the contrary, the reason that fulfillment was so long delayed was because Yaakov had protested the obvious interpretation. This is further proof that the sages were correct in saying that the results of the dreams are greatly influenced by who interprets them and how. [The Talmud, on the folio quoted, illustrates the point with numerous examples. Ed.] His father’s objection to the obvious interpretation of his dream resulted in it coming true so many years later.

הבא נבא אני ואמך, “are indeed I, your mother etc., going to come and bow down, etc.?” How could this be seeing that your mother has died already? Yaakov was not aware that the moon in Joseph’s dream portrayed Bilhah who had raised Joseph as his foster mother. This is Rashi’s interpretation of our verse. Nachmanides writes that in his opinion Bilhah had died before Yaakov moved to Egypt so that she had no opportunity to prostrate herself before her stepson. The Torah, when listing the names of who went down to Egypt, speaks of 70 souls, not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons. We are therefore forced to conclude that had Zilpah and Bilhah been alive still at that time, they would have been mentioned by name. If the Torah at that juncture (46,26) did not want to refer to them as “the wives of Yaakov,” seeing they were his concubines, this is no argument at all, seeing that we read the words נשי אביו, (37,2) and those words clearly refer to Bilhah and Zilpah. We must assume that the sun in the dream refers indeed to Yaakov, and the moon to the members of his household, including all his wives and their children, a total of 70. The eleven stars refer to Joseph’s eleven brothers bowing down to Joseph on their second trip to Egypt, before they had decided to immigrate to Egypt.

“And he told it to his father and his brothers” [37:10]. Joseph told his dream again to his father and to his brothers. Jacob shouted at Joseph: what do you think with the dream, that I and your mother will bow down to you, even though your mother Rachel had died? That is, you say that the dream shows that the sun is the father and the moon is the mother and the eleven stars are eleven brothers. They will all bow down to you. Your mother died long ago. Therefore, the dream is nothing. Jacob said all this so that the brothers should not hate Joseph. However, Jacob thought in his heart that the dream would come true. The moon indicated Bilhah who had raised Joseph like a mother and she would bow down to Joseph. Our sages say that there is some foolishness in every dream. That is to say, even if the dream is true, there is some foolishness in that dream. Jacob wanted to remove the hatred from the brothers. That is why he said that the mother had died long ago, so the dream cannot be true. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:10.) Toldot Yizhak asks a question. Why was the first dream about sheaves of wheat, and the second dream was about stars? The explanation is that the brothers first came for grain, like the peasants who plow, sow and work the fields. However, the second time the brothers came with authority and honor. They were the brothers of Joseph the king. Therefore, the second dream was about stars. That is to say, important people. Therefore, Joseph did not see the sun and moon in the first dream, since the first time the brothers came alone, without father and without mother. However, the second time his father came with Bilhah. That is why the sun and moon were present in the second dream. This explains why Joseph told the second dream to his brothers and to his father. He only told the first dream to his brothers. The explanation is that the first dream was only that the brothers would come, but his father and mother did not yet come the first time. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:9–11.) Imre Noam asks a question. Why does the verse say concerning the sheaves, “and bowed low to my sheaf” [37:7]? This means, they bowed to my sheaf and concerning the stars it is not written that the stars bowed to my star. The explanation is that the stars are in the sky, so Joseph could not say that your stars bowed to my star. The brothers would have asked Joseph, did you have your star in your hand that you say that the stars bowed to your star? However, with the sheaves, Joseph could well say, I had my sheaf in my hand and your sheaves bowed down to my sheaf. (Imre Noam, Genesis, 37:7.) Another explanation is that the first dream was that the brothers came for grain and did not recognize Joseph. Thus, the brothers bowed down for the sake of the grain. Therefore, it is written, “and bowed low to my sheaf” [37:7]. That is to say, they bowed down for the sake of the grain and not to me and my honor. However, the stars showed that the brothers, father and mother, knew him well and bowed down for the sake of Joseph’s honor. Therefore, it says concerning the stars, “bowed to me” [37:9]. That is to say, you will bow for the sake of my honor.

Prostration, what is implied? After one lifts his head from the fifth bow, he sits on the ground, falls with his face towards the earth, and utters all the supplications (Megillah 22b relates that the custom of falling to the earth in supplication was followed in Babylonia in Talmudic times. The Tur, Orach Chayim 131, explains that the reason for prostrating oneself after Shemoneh Esreh is that by doing so, one prays in all three positions of prayer employed by Moses: sitting (during the verses of Praise), - "...and I sat on the mountain 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 9:9), standing (during Shemoneh Esreh) - "And I stood on the mountain as on the first day for 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 10:10), prostration - "And I fell down before God, as at first, for 40 days and 40 nights" (Deuteronomy 9:25). The Zohar (Parshat BaMidbar) explains that after prayer, a person should feel as if he has returned his soul to God and has no life-energy left. Thus, he falls to the ground where he receives new spiritual power.) that he desires. (i.e., there is no fixed text of prayers recited at this time. In his Seder Tefilot kol HaShanah, the Rambam writes: "It is our custom to make supplication while prostrated with these statements and verses; sometimes, mentioning them all and sometimes, mentioning only some of them." Thus, though there was a basic text for these prayers (which is, to a large extent, included in the extended Tachanun recited on Mondays and Thursdays), what a person actually said was still left to his own creative impulse. There are two different versions of תחנון today. The תחנון of Nusach Ha'ari is based on Psalm 25, whereas that of Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefard is based on Psalm 6.) "Kneeling" always refers to [falling to] one's knees; (Megillah 22b derives this law from I Kings 8:54: "And so it was when Solomon completed his Prayer to God... that he rose from kneeling on his knees.") "bowing," to bending over on one's face; (This is derived from I Kings 1:31: "And Bat Sheva bowed with her face to the earth" (ibid.).) and "prostration," to stretching out on one's hands and feet until he is flat with his face on the ground. (This is derived from Genesis 37:10: "Will it come to pass that I and your mother and brothers will prostrate ourselves to you on the ground" (ibid.). The definition of these three terms is important within the context of the following halachah.)

1.2. In the Yalkut Parashat Vayera, about Yosef's dream repeated to his father in the words of Jacob in Genesis 37: מה החלום הזה אשר חלמת הבוא נבוא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה Are we to come, I and your mother and your brothers, and bow down before you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10) They say from this: היה יעקב אבינו סבור, שתחית המתים מגעת בימיו, שנאמר: הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך רחל מתה, ואת אומר אני ואמך Our father, Jacob, imagined that the resurrection of the dead would arrive in his days; as it says: Are we to come, me and your mother? Rachel is dead, and you say, me and your mother?! (Yalkut, Parashat Vayera) It seems that Jacob the patriarch doubted whether the dreams were prophetic since he put into question the impossibility concerning the mother Rachel that was already dead.

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

[(Gen. 42:1:) THEN JACOB SAW THAT THERE WAS GRAIN IN EGYPT.] This text is related (to Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE < AND SEALS UP THE STARS >. (Gen. R. 91:1.) {It simply tells about Jacob and his children, since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME.} Look at all Job's wisdom! Now who does not know that, if the Holy One tells the sun or the stars not to shine, they do not shine, as stated (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE … ? It simply tells about Jacob and his children, [since they were likened to them. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:9): HERE WERE THE SUN, THE MOON, AND ELEVEN STARS BOWING DOWN TO ME]. (Job 9:7:) THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. For the twenty-two years that Joseph stayed away from his brothers in Egypt, the Holy Spirit was hidden from Jacob and his children. He was no farther from them than a journey of four or five days; but they did not know that he was in Egypt. Now Jacob and his children had previously been great prophets. Do you want to understand? When Joseph had told them his dream, what did he say (in Gen. 37:10)? ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN < TO THE GROUND FOR YOU > ? Then, when he had been sold, they did not know where he was. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE. Why so? So that the prophets would not be boastful. The Holy One therefore made his power known to them to show them that they were nothing. And so you find with the greatest of the prophets (i.e., Moses). Because he had said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU SHALL BRING UNTO ME >…. (Sifre to Deut. 1:17 (17); Sanh. 8a.) The Holy One said to him: Are you able to interpret a difficult case? By your life, I am showing you! So, when the affair of the daughters of Zelophehad arrived, he began to have difficulties with it. When he did not know what to say, he brought their cause before the LORD, as stated (in Numb. 27:5): THEN MOSES BROUGHT THEIR CAUSE BEFORE THE LORD. The Holy One said to him: Was it not you who said (in Deut. 1:17): BUT THE CASE WHICH IS TOO HARD FOR YOU < YOU ARE TO BRING UNTO ME > … ? See, you do not know what the women know. (Numb. 27:7:) THE DAUGHTERS OF ZELOPHEHAD SPEAK WHAT IS RIGHT. These women have judged better than you. And so also in the case of Samuel, when he was measured against Moses and Aaron. Because he had said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER, the Holy One said to him: You have said: I AM THE SEER! By your life, tomorrow I am showing you whether you are a seer. Thus it is stated (in I Sam. 16:1): FILL YOUR HORN WITH OIL AND GO; {COME} [I AM SENDING YOU] UNTO JESSE THE BETHLEHEMITE BECAUSE I HAVE CHOSEN A KING FOR MYSELF AMONG HIS SONS. When he had gone, what is written (in I Sam. 16:6)? AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN HE HAD COME, THAT HE SAW ELIAB AND SAID: SURELY THE LORD'S ANOINTED IS STANDING BEFORE HIM. The Holy One said to him: Are you the one who said (in I Sam. 9:19): I AM THE SEER? (I Sam. 16:7:) DO NOT LOOK UPON HIS APPEARANCE…. And so also in the case of Jacob [and his children], they were prophets and sages, and nothing was hidden from them. When Joseph was sold, they did not know about him until the Holy One [wanted] < them to know >. Ergo (in Job 9:7): THE ONE WHO TELLS THE SUN NOT TO SHINE….

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

נזופים – rebuked. It is the Aramaic translation of (Genesis 37:10): “his father berated him,” – that his father berated him (in Aramaic).

"rebuked (nazouf)": excommunicated; as "and his father rebuked him" (Genesis 37:10), we translate [into Aramaic as] ounezaf beh avohi.

and a byword - Heb. וְלִשְׁנִינָה, like (Deut. 6:7): וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ, “and you shall teach them.” [It is] an expression of recounting misfortunes. Similarly, the Targum of (Gen. 37:10) וַיְסַפֵּר “And he told,” is וְאִשְׁתָּעֵי, and [the Targum of] וְלִשְׁנִינָה is וּלְשׁוּעֵי.

In this regard, it is significant that Yosef does not have his dreams about domination over his family until after his father gives him the special tunic. (See Thomas Mann’s humorous, fanciful account of the tunic’s lineage and Yosef’s hunger for it in Joseph and his Brothers (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986) pp. 314–23.) It is as if the acquisition of this garment makes him believe, perhaps only somewhat incorrectly, that he has been elected to be the leader of the clan. It is to this perception that his father Ya’akov addresses himself when he rhetorically asks his son, “Am I also to bow down to you?” (Bereshit 37:10). (Bereshit 37:10.) When he hears this, Yosef is silent.

On which to prostrate themselves. Rashi wishes to prove that משכית is in the sense of a floor, since it is written in the verse ואבן משכית ["overlaid stones"]. He also wishes to prove his comment, “To prostrate themselves with arms and legs extended.” [He derives this from the fact that] it is written, “On which to prostrate yourselves,” and regarding Yosef it is written (Bereishis 37:10), “To prostrate to you upon the ground” which refers to extending the arms and legs.

[135] And therefore one of this sort is gently rebuked by his father, not Jacob, but by that right reason which is higher and greater than Jacob. “What is this dream which you dreamt?” (Gen. 37:10), he says.

Having mentioned Solomon bowing, the Gemara distinguishes between various types of bowing. The Sages taught in a baraita: The term kidda means bowing upon one’s face, with his face toward the ground, as it is stated: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means bowing upon one’s knees, as regarding Solomon it is stated: He finished praying and “he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikkeroa] upon his knees.” Finally, hishtaḥava’a, that is bowing with one’s hands and legs spread in total submission, as it is stated in Jacob’s question to Joseph in response to his dream: “Shall we, I and your mother and your brothers, come and bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10).

Apropos Rav’s practice of prostrating himself, the Gemara continues with a discussion of different forms of bowing. The Sages taught in a baraita: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, with one’s face toward the ground, as it is stated: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means bowing upon one’s knees, as it is stated with regard to Solomon: He finished praying and “he rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikkeroa] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Finally, hishtaḥava’a, that is bowing with one’s arms and legs spread in total submission, as it is stated that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10).

The Gemara discusses the different forms of bowing in greater detail. The Sages taught: The term kidda indicates falling upon one’s face, and so the verse states: “Then Bathsheba bowed [vatikkod] with her face to the ground” (I Kings 1:31). Keria means descending upon one’s knees, and so the verse states with regard to Solomon: “He rose from before the altar of the Lord, from kneeling [mikero’a] upon his knees” (I Kings 8:54). Hishtaḥava’a, this is prostrating oneself while spreading one’s arms and legs in total submission, and so the verse states that Jacob asked, in response to Joseph’s relating of his dream: “Shall I and your mother and your brothers indeed come to bow down [lehishtaḥavot] to you to the ground” (Genesis 37:10), i.e., spread out completely on the ground.

He told it to his father and to his brothers. His father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream that you dreamed? Shall I, your mother and your brothers come and prostrate themselves on the ground to you?

And he related it to his father and to his brethren: but his father rebuked him, and said to him, What dream is this that thou hast dreamed? Shall I, and thy mother, and thy brethren, really come and bow before thee to the ground?

This is a very great thing. For then, a person knows that he did [a mitzvah] on that day, and created one angel – “And if there is for him an angel, an intercessor, one among a thousand (A thousand accusers.) to vouch for a man’s uprightness, then He will be gracious to him, and say, ‘Deliver him from descending to the pit, I have found a ransom’” (Job 33:23). This is alluded to in [the verse]: “He who keeps (shomer) the commandment will not know an evil thing…” (Ecclesiastes 8:5). That is, when a person commits himself to being constantly attentive – from morning till eve – for a mitzvah to present itself to him. This is the meaning of shomer, as in “And his father watched out for the matter (shomar et hadavar)” (Genesis 37:11). Then, the result will be that he “will not know an evil thing.” That is, he will not have an improper seminal emission, which is called “evil,” G-d forbid. (The Torah considers the act of spilling seed as one of the most grievous sins possible, so much so that it is given the unique title of “evil” – ra. (As in the verse: “And Er, Judah’s first-born, was evil in the sight of G-d…” (Genesis 38:7), on which Rashi comments that he intentionally spilled his seed on the ground.) According to Kabbalah, this act was part of the sin of Adam, and causes damage even when it happens unintentionally, such as during sleep. Much of Chasidic thought deals with rectifying this sin on the personal and cosmic level. In addition to the mystical power of mitzvah observance to engender purity, the Baal Shem Tov may have meant that constant attentiveness to fulfilling the will of G-d protects a man from impure thoughts during the day, so that his dreams will be pure at night. This is as the Talmud states: “A person shouldn’t think about illicit things during the day that will bring him to impurity in the night” (Kesuvos 46a).) This is alluded to in the verse: “The kindness of G-d is all the day” (Psalms 52:3). That is, each and every day, you must do kindness to G-d. Tzava’as HaRivash, p. 3b

And his father guarded the matter. (Genesis 37:11) Thought precedes speech, and gives birth to it. Thus, thought is called “father,” and speech is called “offspring.” “His father guarded the matter” means that thought guards speech, so that a person only speaks that which is appropriate. Noam Megadim, Mishpotim

According to Jewish mystics, Joseph was the paradigm of virtue and righteousness, the personification of tzaddik yesod olam, a man of such holiness that his merit sustains the entire world. Joseph was also Jacob’s favorite son, and they shared a special relationship. (See Gen. 30:25 and Rashi’s comment on that verse; Gen. 37:2 and the respective Rashi; also Gen. 37:11, 37:35, 45:27-28.) When Jacob lay dying he called Joseph and requested burial in the Land of Israel. Although Joseph promised that he would ensure his father’s interment in Israel (Gen. 47:30), Jacob was not satisfied and demanded that an oath be sworn in God’s name: “And he [Jacob] said ‘Swear to me’ and he [Joseph] swore to him, and Israel [another name for Jacob] bowed back toward the head of the bed” (Gen. 47:31).

Deuteronomy 8,1. “The entire commandment that I ‎enjoin upon you this day is so that you will live (thrive) and ‎multiply and be able to take possession of the land, etc.‎‏"‏‎; ‎‎ We have a rule that even if a person is unable to observe all ‎of the commandments of the Torah, especially in exile, when we ‎are all unable to fulfill the commandments which are applicable ‎to people resident in the Holy Land, as long as such people yearn ‎for the day when they will be able to observe these ‎commandments, G’d will help them to be able to fulfill these ‎commandments in the Holy Land in due course.‎ This is the message Moses conveys to the people at this ‎juncture when speaking of ‎כל המצוה‎, “the entire complex of ‎commandments.” If you will yearn, starting now, to perform ‎these commandments as soon as the opportunity will present ‎itself, you will surely enjoy the merit of doing so in person.‎ The word ‎תשמרון‎ in this verse is to be understood in the same ‎way as when Yaakov is reported when reacting to Joseph’s dream ‎in which 11 stars and sun and moon bow down to him. At that ‎point (Genesis 37,11) the Torah writes: ‎ואביו שמר את הדבר‎, “his ‎father looked forward expectantly to the matter.” ‎‎[Contrary to Joseph’s brothers, who were outraged by ‎Joseph’s dream of lording it over them, his father did not dismiss ‎it out of hand, although he pointed out that Joseph’s deceased ‎mother could certainly not bow down to him. Ed.]‎

Once we have appreciated this, we will also understand the ‎opinion of Nachmanides who writes that it is a commandment to ‎mention the Sabbath on each of the days preceding it. This is the ‎reason why when we recite the daily psalm at the end of our daily ‎morning prayers we commence with mentioning what day of the ‎week it is by linking it to the Sabbath, i.e. “today is the first day ‎of the Sabbath.” [We do not say: “this is the first day of ‎the week,” for instance. Ed.] According to Nachmanides ‎this is the reason that the Torah writes ‎זכור את יום השבת לקדשו‎, ‎‎“remember the day of the Sabbath to sanctify it,” instead of ‎merely writing: “remember the Sabbath to sanctify it.” (Exodus ‎‎20,8). The message is that we are to remember the Sabbath every ‎day of the week, the word ‎זכור‎ not being in the imperative mode ‎but in the infinitive mode. By doing so we indicate how we look ‎forward to keeping the Sabbath at the end of the week. Having ‎looked forward to the Sabbath in such a fashion ensures that ‎when the day arrives we will honour it with all our heart and will ‎not, G’d forbid, commit any act which would desecrate its ‎holiness. From all the above it follows that if Moses had ‎announced the fact that the manna would not descend on the ‎Sabbath as soon as He had been told about this by G’d, the people ‎could have prepared themselves for this day until Friday and the ‎desecration by some people of the Sabbath might well have been ‎avoided. The sudden announcement shortly before the onset of ‎the Sabbath took everyone by surprise and resulted in some ‎people not treating the Sabbath with the respect due to it. The word ‎לשמור‎ in our verse need not be understood as “to ‎observe,” but may equally well be understood as “to await,” as it ‎is understood in Genesis 37,11 where it describes Yaakov’s ‎reaction to Joseph’s dream in which he saw sun and moon bowing ‎down to him. It means that Yaakov awaited further developments ‎before deciding if there was any substance to Joseph’s dream. This ‎is also how Rashi understands the word ‎לשמור‎ in our verse, ‎when he writes that Moses was punished by G’d not excluding ‎him from the accusation leveled at the community at large. He ‎was the indirect cause of the desecration of the Sabbath by the ‎people, as he had failed to prepare the people for the advent of ‎the Sabbath. They should have eagerly awaited that day, i.e. have ‎looked forward to it with great expectations.‎

Genesis 31,13. “I am the G’d of Betel to Whom you have ‎vowed, etc.” The spelling of the word ‎ביתאל‎ both here and in ‎‎35,1 suggests that a house may serve more than one function. It ‎may serve a person to dwell in, just as clothing serves the body as ‎a “house” to surround him with a feeling of security and ‎familiarity. When you see the clothes a person wears, this serves ‎as a preparation to making the acquaintance of the personality ‎behind these clothes. When you see the house a person lives in, ‎you get an initial impression of what kind of a person lives in ‎such a house. ‎When a person prepares to “meet” his Creator, in prayer, etc., ‎he also has to prepare himself for what to expect, by performing ‎certain commandments that serve his soul, much as his clothing ‎serves his body. One of the most appropriate “introductions” ‎prior to addressing G’d is to do so in a house designated for this ‎purpose, i.e. a synagogue. The type of “preparations” used, ‎depend on the importance of the “interview” one expects to have ‎with one’s Creator. Issues involving life and death, obviously ‎deserve a more careful preparation.‎ In psalms 84,2 and 84,3 respectively, the authors (sons of ‎Korach) describe their yearning for entering either the dwellings ‎of G’d on earth, or at least to be allowed to enter the courtyards ‎of these dwellings. They speak of both their body (flesh) and their ‎‎“heart,” (spirit) yearning for this. They hope that admission to ‎these sites will enable them to shout for joy to the living G’d. ‎Their yearnings reflect the fact that they are in exile, and they ‎pray that they not be treated worse than birds that always can ‎return to their nest. They are aware that in order to really come ‎close to G’d, they must first make the appropriate preparations, ‎i.e. build a Temple with the courtyards surrounding it. The ‎psalmist clearly suggests, at the end of verse 3, that only after ‎these preparations have been made can his heart and body rejoice ‎having come closer to His Creator. He can then approach G’d ‎being certain that he, on his part, has made the appropriate ‎preparations.‎ Our author sees in the word ‎נכספה‎ at the beginning of verse 3 ‎an additional spiritual plus of the psalmist, as he made plain that ‎he had made the necessary preparations that would entitle him to ‎have the desired “interview” with Hashem, but he ‎emphasizes, that contrary to performing such a commandment ‎as putting on phylacteries, an act that does not involve ‎pleasurable sensations of his body, what he did when building a ‎courtyard and temple for G’d involved him emotionally on the ‎highest level. He was literally yearning for the spiritual ‎experience no less than the body on occasion yearns for satiating ‎physical urges.‎ On folio 40 in Kidushin 40, where the Talmud deals with ‎the relative moral/ethical value of appropriate intentions when ‎compared to performance, but not necessarily with appropriate ‎intentions, we are told that if someone planned sincerely to ‎perform a certain commandment but was prevented from ‎carrying out his intention by forces beyond his control, he is ‎credited with having performed the commandment. In ‎emphasizing the value of a constructive attitude, the Talmud ‎adds that planning to commit a transgression, and carrying it ‎out, brings in its wake a penalty only for the execution, not for ‎the planning that preceded carrying out the foul deed. ‎‎[The planning of idolatry is the only exception to this ‎rule. ibid. Ed.]‎ This is also the meaning of Deuteronomy 6,6: ‎והיו הדברים האלה ‏אשר אני מצוך היום על לבבך‎, “these matters that I command you this ‎day shall be on your heart.” Even commandments that are not ‎capable of being fulfilled in exile should remain part of our ‎constant consciousness through discussion between father and ‎son, pupil and teacher, so that we are not deprived of receiving a ‎reward for them as if we had actually performed them. The desire ‎to be able to perform the respective commandments in reality is ‎the principal criterion used by G’d to judge our mitzvah ‎performance. Even King David in Chronicles I 22,14 already ‎referred to this when he said (concerning his desire to build a ‎Temple) ‎והנה בעניי הכינותי לבית ה' זהב ככרים מאה אלף כסף וגו'‏‎, “and ‎here through denying myself, I have set aside for the house of the ‎Lord one hundred thousands talents of gold, and one million ‎talents of silver, etc;” what David meant was that the ‎commandment of charity cannot only be fulfilled by the actual ‎handing out of sums of money, but can also be carried out by ‎preparing such monies to be ready when the need arises. David ‎adds that even while he was not able to hand out sums that were ‎needed because he was temporarily short of even bare essentials ‎for himself, i.e. ‎בעניי‎, his sincere desire to be of help would be ‎accounted for him as if he had actually carried out his desire, as ‎we know from psalms 119,106 ‎נשבעתי ואקימה לשמור משפטי צדקך‎, “I ‎have sworn to keep Your just rules.” [As soon as the ‎opportunity will arise. Ed.] Yaakov had similar thoughts ‎when he vowed that if G’d would be with him and grant him even ‎minimal comforts he would turn what is now merely a stone into ‎a building designed to serve G’d. G’d reminds him (31,13) of this ‎vow by describing Himself as ‎אנכי הא-ל ביתאל‎, saying that His ‎presence will not only be with him in his heart, but that he can ‎now carry out his desire to convert the stone he had anointed ‎into a house of G’d.‎

Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and ‎observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first ‎glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We ‎would have expected the Torah to write simply: ‎אם תשמרו את ‏מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו‎, “if you will observe My commandments I ‎will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the ‎reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall ‎that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will ‎account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the ‎good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a ‎commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted ‎as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through ‎an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good ‎intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.‎Leviticus 26,3. “if you will walk in My statutes and ‎observe My commandments and carry them out.” At first ‎glance there appears to be unnecessary verbiage in this verse. We ‎would have expected the Torah to write simply: ‎אם תשמרו את ‏מצותי ונתתי גשמיכם בעתו‎, “if you will observe My commandments I ‎will provide your rainfall at the appropriate time.” However, the ‎reason for the additional words may be understood when we recall ‎that the Talmud in Kiddushin 40 states that G’d will ‎account a good intention as if it were a good deed, i.e. that the ‎good intention is already accounted as fulfillment of a ‎commandment. In other words, the good intention is accounted ‎as if it had already been translated into action, so that if through ‎an accident beyond one’s control actual performance of the good ‎intention was prevented, one is still given credit for it.‎ From this it follows that when one performs a good deed ‎‎(commandment) truly without any ulterior motive this may ‎result in such a person being transported to a higher spiritual ‎level than the one he had been on prior to performance of that ‎commandment. As a result of such a spiritual “promotion,” one ‎will be granted the opportunity to fulfill still other ‎commandments. The process will continue as a self-fulfilling ‎prophecy. This is what the sages had in mind when they said that ‎the reward of fulfilling a commandment is another ‎commandment. (Avot 4,2) It is also the meaning of ‎מצוה ‏גוררת מצוה‎, “performance of one commandment drags an ‎additional commandment in its wake.” (ibid.) Keeping this in ‎mind we can also understand the meaning of the line in ‎‎Niddah 73 quoted in the name of Tanna de bey Eliyahu ‎that every person who makes it a rule to study at least one ‎‎halachah daily, is assured that he will have a share in the ‎world to come. The meaning is that that individual will progress ‎daily ever closer to his ultimate objective of the world to come as ‎he has not been deflected from his path. This is the meaning of ‎the verse from Scripture quoted by the author of this saying, i.e. ‎Chabakuk 3,6 ‎הליכות עולם לו‎, “he will make steady progress ‎towards another, eternal life.”‎ The words: ‎אם בחקותי תלכו‎, mean that “if you cleave to My ‎statutes,” you will be considered as “walking” on the right path, ‎תלכו‎. The words: ‎ואת מצותי תשמרו‎, refer to your planning, ‎thinking of, performing My commandments, even if you have not ‎succeeded for some reason to carry out your good intention, I will ‎consider it as if you had done it, i.e. ‎ועשיתם אותם‎. When ‎understood in this manner, none of the words in our verse are ‎superfluous or repetitious.‎

The mnemonic by which to remember this, is the verse, (Ecclesiastes 8:5) “He who guards-Shomer-שומר the mitzvah will know no evil.” In other words, whoever accepts this matter upon himself, must stand guard at his post from morning to evening, awaiting the opportunity to fulfill any mitzvah that comes his way. That is, the term guard-Shomer-שומר is of the same root used in the verse, (Genesis 37:11) “His father waited in anticipation-Shamar-שמר of the matter.” (Rashi to Genesis 37:11 ) Through this, one merits that, “He will know no evil.” That is, he will not be subject to random happenstance (Keri-קרי) (Leviticus 26:21 & Rashi there; Also see Ginat Egoz of Rabbi Yosef Gikatilla, translated as HaShem Is One, Volume 2, pg. 353.) which is called evil, God forbid.

KEPT THE SAYING. In his mind. This is also the correct meaning of kept in They kept His testimonies (Ps. 99:7). (The meaning of Ps. 22:7 is that they kept the testimonies in mind so that they would at the appropriate time teach them to the children of Israel.)

ויקנאו בו אחיו, His brothers were jealous of him. When the brothers had heard this second dream they backtracked from accusing Joseph of wanting to be a ruler over all of them; they agreed that Joseph could not have aspired to rule over his own father. The very fact that he had such a dream, however, indicated that he had received a message from heaven. They were jealous of Joseph having received that communication.

ויקנאו בו אחיו, “his brothers were jealous of him.” It is well known that in most instances hatred is the result of jealousy; the hatred which the Torah had spoken of earlier in verse four had been due to the brothers’ awareness that their father Yaakov loved Joseph more than he loved them, as the Torah has spelled out there. Why then did the Torah have to repeat here that the brothers were jealous of Joseph? It is possible that the correct explanation of the original hatred of the brothers towards Joseph was not due to the preferred status Joseph enjoyed in the eyes of their father due to his excelling in virtues, but was due merely to their father showing him more love. There was actually no reason to be envious of a young boy of seventeen years of age who had not demonstrated any qualities superior to those of his brothers. One usually envies one’s peers or one’s superiors. One is not given to envy inferiors. Now, after having heard repeatedly the kind of dreams their brother had experienced, his older brothers realised that there might be more to Joseph than they had thought before. Therefore they now envied him his dreams and hated him because of them. The Torah therefore told us of this additional dimension of the brothers’ jealousy of Joseph. This idea is best illustrated by the change of preposition the Torah chose to describe their new jealousy. In our verse the Torah chose the preposition בו as distinct from the preposition את or אותו which was used to describe their hatred of him, or the verse in Genesis 26,14 where the Philistines’ jealousy of Yitzchak is described as ויקנאו אותו פלשתים.

הדבר, even though Yaakov had been angry at Joseph he was worried about what the dream might forecast and he remembered it.

ואביו שמר את הדבר. Why did the Torah bother to write this line? The reason is that when the brothers returned from Egypt and reported about Joseph’s position there, and Yaakov did not believe them that Joseph was still alive, he saw the carriages which Pharaoh had sent to transport him in (45,27) and realised that such an honour could only be bestowed by a king, and that seeing that the King of Egypt had no reason to honour him in such a manner, the carriages, though sent with the approval of Pharaoh, must have been sent by someone in an almost equally high position, i.e. his son Joseph, who had dreamed of attaining such stature. It was the recollection of the dream Joseph had told him about which then prompted Yaakov to exclaim רב,עוד יוסף בני חי, וכי הוא מושל בכל בארץ מצרים, “it is too much! Not only is my son Joseph still alive, but he is the ruler of the whole land of Egypt!” (45,28 combined with 26)

שמר את הדבר OBSERVED THE MATTER — He awaited and looked forward to the time when this would come to pass. In the same sense we have (Isaiah 26:2) “that watch (שומר) for faithfulness” (i.e., for the performance of a promise) and (Job 14:16) — “לא תשמור for my sin” — which means “thou dost not wait for my sin”.

(11-12) Nach dem Vorgange Sipornos, eines unserer denkendsten Kommentatoren, halten wir uns verpflichtet, uns hinsichtlich des nun folgenden Vorganges, wenngleich nicht nach einer Rechtfertigung, so doch nach einer Erklärung umzusehen. Wir haben es doch nicht mit einer Rotte Räuber und Mörder zu tun, denen es ein Leichtes wird, um eines Rockes willen Mord und Totschlag zu begehen. Macht ja Siporno mit Recht darauf aufmerksam, wie später, als den Brüdern in äußerster Not das Gewissen schlug, sie (Kap. 42, 21) sich keineswegs über ein an Josef verübtes Verbrechen, sondern nur über ihre Härte Vorwürfe machten, daß sie seinem Flehen haben widerstehen können. Sie müssen also die Tat an sich für hart, aber nicht für Unrecht gehalten haben. Wir müssen daher ein Auge auch für die leisesten Andeutungen haben, die uns alles dies psychologisch erklärlich machen dürften.

Das Missverhältnis, wird uns gesagt, hatte mit קנאה begonnen; es war darauf שנאה hinzugekommen, sie hassten ihn, weil sie aus seinen Träumen seine Gedanken und Pläne zu erkennen glaubten, sie fürchteten ihn jedoch nicht, weil sie nicht an deren Verwirklichung glaubten. Als sie nun aber seinen letzten Traum hörten — der ihm ja eine höchste Majestät auf Erden und nicht bloß einen Herrscherrang im Familienkreise verhieß — und sahen, wie der Vater dies auffasste, es nicht als bloßen Traum ansah, sondern nachdenkend darüber wurde, an eine Möglichkeit der Erfüllung dachte: da fing in der שנאה zugleich wieder קנאה an wach zu werden (— ׳קנא ב heißt buchstäblich: seine berechtigten Ansprüche durch jemanden gefährdet glauben —) und da heißt es denn unmittelbar darauf: וילכו אחיו und zwar bedeutsam durch Ethnach getrennt, also: sie gingen fort! Es war in sie tief das Bewusstsein gedrungen, daß ihnen durch Josef eine Beeinträchtigung ihrer Rechte drohe, darum gingen sie fort. Und zwar entfernten sie sich sehr weit. שכם ist von הברון zehn bis zwölf deutsche Meilen entfernt. Dazu ist das את in לרעות את צאן punktiert, nach מדרש רבות, anzudeuten: nur ostensibel die Schafe, in Wahrheit "sich zu weiden"; wollten die Selbständigkeit bewahren, die sie durch Jakobs Meinung über die künftige Stellung Josefs beeinträchtigt glaubten. Eigentümlich ist es, daß sie gerade nach Sichem gingen. שכם war ja die Stätte, wo sich das Gefühl ihrer Zusammengehörigkeit zu allererst so energisch betätigt hatte, dort hatten Simon und Levi das denkwürdige: הכזונה יעשה את אחתנו?! gesprochen. Steht nun die ganze Familie als ein Mann nach außen, wenn ein Glied bedroht wird, um wie viel mehr hält sie zusammen, wenn im innern von einem Gliede Ehre und Selbständigkeit bedroht wird — so durften sie denken, und deshalb nach שכם gezogen sein, dort, auf der Stätte brüderlicher Großtat, die ihnen wieder notwendig scheinenden Entschlüsse zu nähren. Und wirklich war ihre Zukunft bedroht, wenn Josefs Stellung eine solche hätte werden sollen, wie sie ihnen vorschwebte. War es ja noch gar nicht so lange her, seitdem mit Nimrod das Königtum begonnen. Waren ja ihre Vettern in Sei׳r-Edom bereits unter Aluphim und Königen geknechtet. Im Gegensatz zu diesem, die Menschen zu Ziegelsteinen für den Bau des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen herabwürdigenden Königtum sollte ja eben die Abrahamsfamilie einen Menschenverein verwirklichen, in welchem auf dem Boden der Freiheit und Gleichheit der Menschenadel und die Menschenwürde zur Geltung kommen, und die gemeinsame Aufgabe לשמר דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט als der ausgesprochene Wille Gottes allein die über alle gleich gebietende Herrschaft haben sollte —: wo bliebe ihre und der Menschheit Zukunft, wenn auch sie sich in die Fesseln des Ehrgeizes eines einzelnen schlagen ließen?? — Merkwürdig, als später, nach Salomos Tode, das Volk dem Rehabeam erst Bedingungen setzen und seine Selbständigkeit durch eine Kapitulation wahren wollte, versammelte es sich wiederum nach Sichem, dort gegen ein seine Macht missbrauchendes Königtum im Gefühle der Zusammengehörigkeit und Gleichheit vor Gott Opposition zu erheben. Es scheint hier ein kleines, ähnliches Vorspiel.

ויקנאו בו אחיו, they attributed such aspirations by Joseph to the fact that their father had appointed them as senior to them, otherwise he would not have dared tell such dreams even in his father’s presence.

ואביו שמר, he remembered it because he thought that the dream reflected what would in fact occur. In fact, his father was looking forward to the fulfillment of Joseph’s dream. This reflects the statement in the Talmud Sanhedrin 105 that a person may be jealous of everyone except his students and his children.

His brothers envied him, whether on account of his abnormal dreams, or because of their father’s relatively mild response. Unlike Joseph’s brothers, Jacob did not rebuke Joseph for expressing undeserved arrogance; he claimed only that the dream could never come to fruition. But his father kept the matter in mind. Despite his stated assertion that Joseph’s dreams were mere fantasy, Jacob kept them in mind, as he believed that there was some significance to them.

And still, we see that the sacred Scripture says below, and his brothers were angry with him, and his father had the matter in mind (Gen 37:11). So the ancients say, how did he doubt, on the one hand, and waited for her?

Study and you will see that all the ancients were punished solely on account of their envy. Cain, who spoke with HaShem-יהו״ה, blessed is He, mouth to mouth, was excised from the world along with his descendants, because he was envious of his brother Abel’s twin sister. (Midrash Bereishit Rabba 22:1; Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 21) As a result of his jealousy he came to transgress all his sins. Similarly, the ten tribes of Israel were exiled to Egypt because Joseph’s brothers envied him. (Genesis 37:11; Also see Tanchuma Veyeishev 18 and elsewhere.) Ultimately, they were further punished with the incident the ten martyrs. (Midrash Eileh Ezkera and elsewhere.) Yeravam, before whom all the Torah scholars of the generation were like grass of the field, (Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 101a-b) was excised from the world solely because he envied the kingdom of the House of David.

Chapter (72) 73: Torah [1] "And the El Shaddai grant you mercy" (Genesis 43:14). As it is written in scriptures: Knowledge [of escape from You] is concealed from me. It is too formidable. I cannot know it. (Psalm 139:6). What is the meaning of "extraordinary level of understanding beyond my grasp"? It refers to something that is difficult for a person to comprehend, as it says, "If there arise among you a matter too hard for judgment" (Deuteronomy 17:8). Jacob said, "I cannot understand this matter." God promised Abraham that he would have twelve tribes, as it says, "Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them...So shall thy seed be" (Genesis 15:5). Just as there are twelve constellations in the heavens that govern the world, so too I will establish twelve tribes from you that will govern the world, as it is said, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Ishmael was born and he begot twelve princes, as it is said, "And he shall be a wild ass of a man: his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the face of all his brethren" (Genesis 16:12), Abraham thought that these were the twelve tribes. But God said to him, "No, not those that you think. Sarah will bear a son for you" (Genesis 17:19), as it is said, "And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac" (Genesis 21:12). It is through Isaac that your seed will be called (Genesis 21:12), as I said to you, "Thus shall your seed be" (Genesis 15:5). When Isaac married Rebecca and she was found to be barren, he began to question how the promise that God made to Abraham could be fulfilled, as she was barren, as it is said, "And Isaac entreated the Lord for his wife, because she was barren" (Genesis 25:21), and the children struggled within her (Genesis 25:22). "I'm sorry," she began, "if that's the case, I apologize to one another and "She went to inquire of יהוה," (Genesis 25:22), went to the study hall of Shem, and the Lord said to her, 'Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your body' (Genesis 25:23). Why did she say why is it? (Genesis 25:22), "this" is numerically equivalent to 12. And God said to her [Sarah], "What you think is not so, but there are two nations in your womb." When Jacob stood up and went out to Laban, Isaac called him and said to him, "Let it be known that the Lord is establishing twelve tribes from you," as it is said, "Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and commanded him, and said to him, 'Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother's father, and take a wife from there of the daughters of Laban, your mother's brother. And may God Almighty bless you, and make you fruitful, and multiply you, that you may be a congregation of peoples; and give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and your descendants with you" (Genesis 28:1-4). The blessing that He blessed Abraham with, saying, "Look up now" (Genesis 15:5), is fulfilled through you. And once Jacob went and took wives and fathered twelve tribes, as it says, "And the sons of Jacob were twelve" (Genesis 35:22), Joseph began to see hints of it in his dream, saying, "Behold, I have dreamed a dream" (Genesis 37:9). Jacob began to keep watch over his father's words, and his father kept the matter (Genesis 37:11). And when Joseph was sold and Simeon was bound and Benjamin was brought to take revenge, Jacob began to cry out, "Me? What do I know? I thought that from my fathers I would establish twelve tribes, but I am dwindling and going down," as it says, "Joseph is gone" (Genesis 42:36). Everything that the old man promised was fulfilled, and yet I am decreasing and going down. "How incomprehensible is this to me," as it says, "I do not know what to say to you, but one thing remains in my hand, the blessing that my father blessed me with, saying, 'And Almighty God bless you'" (Genesis 28:3).

“He dreamed yet another dream, and related it to his brothers, and he said: Behold, I dreamed another dream: and, behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9). “He dreamed yet another dream…” – when Joseph said: “Behold, the sun, the moon,” Jacob said: Who revealed to him that my name is sun? (See Bereshit Rabba 68:10.) Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Joshua said to the sun: Wayward slave, were you not purchased with the money of my father? Did my father not see you in the dream: “Behold, the sun, the moon…prostrated themselves to me”? You, too, stand still before me. Immediately, “the sun stood still, and the moon stopped” (Joshua 10:13). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him and said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed? Will we come, I, your mother, and your brothers, to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground?” (Genesis 37:10). “He related it to his father and to his brothers, and his father scolded him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘So you will scold your prophets,’ as it is stated: “Now, why did you not scold Jeremiah of Anatot” (Jeremiah 29:27). (This quote, ascribed to the false prophet Shemaya the Neḥelamite, indicates that the Israelites were wont to scold their prophets. ) “And said to him: What is this dream that you dreamed”? Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: So, our patriarch Jacob believed that the revival of the dead would occur in his lifetime, as it is stated: “Will we come [havo navo]” – Will I and your brothers come? That is fine. “[Will we come,] I and your mother” – is your mother not dead; and you say: “I, your mother, and your brothers? (Nevertheless, the next verse states: “But his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:11).) However, Jacob our patriarch did not know that the matter related to Bilha, Rachel’s maidservant, who raised him as though she was his mother.

“His brothers envied him; but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers envied him; but his father kept [the matter] in mind” – Rabbi Levi said: He took a quill and wrote on which day, at which hour, at what place. (He recorded all the details of Joseph’s recounting of the dream so he could refer back to it. This indicated that he believed in the dream. ) Rabbi Ḥiyya Rabba said: “But his father kept the matter in mind” – the Divine Spirit was saying: Keep these matters in mind because they are destined to occur. Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This is what our patriarch Jacob believed. He saw that these matters were impending. (Jacob saw that he was in fact destined to bow to Joseph (Matnot Kehuna). ) He said: If his ledger was scrutinized, what can I do? (If my ledger has been scrutinized, meaning if my own record has been scrutinized in heaven and I am destined to bow to my own son as a result of my sins, so be it (Matnot Kehuna). )

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

And Joseph was seventeen years old, and he still continued to regard himself above his ‎brothers and to exalt himself above them. And at that time Joseph dreamed a dream, and he ‎came unto his brothers to tell them of his dream, and he said unto them: I dreamed a dream, ‎and behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and lo, my sheaf arose and also stood ‎upright, and behold your sheaves stood round about and made obeisance to my sheaf. And ‎his brothers said unto him: What is the meaning of this dream that thou didst dream? Dost ‎thou think in thine heart to govern and to rule over us. And Joseph came also unto his father ‎informing him of his dream, and Jacob heard the words of his mouth and he kissed him and ‎Jacob blessed Joseph. And when the sons of Jacob saw that their father had kissed and ‎blessed Joseph and that he loved him so dearly, they became jealous of him and they hated ‎him still more. And afterwards Joseph dreamed another dream and he related it unto his ‎father in the presence of his brothers, and he said unto his father and brothers: Behold, I have ‎dreamed another dream, and lo, the sun, and the moon, and eleven stars bowed down ‎before me. And Jacob heard the words of Joseph and his dream, and he saw that his brothers ‎hated Joseph on account of these words, and Jacob rebuked Joseph in the presence of his ‎brothers, saying: What is the meaning of this dream which thou hast dreamed that thou ‎exaltest thyself over thy brothers who are greater than thou. Thinkest thou perhaps in thine ‎heart that we will come, I and thy mother and thy eleven brothers to bow down before thee, ‎that thou speakest these words. And his brothers were jealous of him concerning his words ‎and dreams and their hatred against him increased. And Jacob observed and kept the dreams ‎within his heart.‎

“If only you were like a brother to me, who suckled the breasts of my mother. I would find you outside; I would kiss you, yet they would not despise me” (Song of Songs 8:1). “If only you were like a brother to me” – like what brother? Like Cain to Abel? Cain killed Abel, as it is stated: “Cain arose against Abel his brother, and killed him” (Genesis 4:8). Rather, like Ishmael to Isaac? Ishmael hated Isaac. Rather, like Esau to Jacob? But it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Rather, like Joseph’s brothers to Joseph? They hated him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Like what brother? “One who suckled the breasts of my mother” – that is to say like Joseph to Benjamin, who loved him wholeheartedly, as it is stated: “Joseph saw Benjamin with them” (Genesis 43:16). (As the story unfolds, the verse states that Joseph wept when he saw Benjamin (Genesis 43:30).) “I would find you outside; I would kiss you”; “outside” – this is the wilderness, which is outside the settled area. “I would kiss you” – regarding two brothers who kissed each other, and these are Moses and Aaron, as it is stated: “He went, and he met him at the mountain of God, and he kissed him” (Exodus 4:27). “They would not despise me” – Rabbi Pinḥas said: There was an incident involving two siblings, one of whom was in Meron and one in Gush Ḥalav. The house of the one who lived in Meron caught fire. His sister from Gush Ḥalav came and began hugging, embracing, and kissing him, and saying: This does not demean me, as my brother was in dire straits and was delivered from them.

“For love is as intense as death” – the love that the Holy One blessed be He has for you is as intense as death. That is what is written: “I have loved you, said the Lord…” (Malachi 1:2). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – when they infuriate the Holy One blessed be He with their idol worship, as it is stated: “They would infuriate Him with strange gods” (Deuteronomy 32:16). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Isaac had for Esau; that is what is written: “Isaac loved Esau” (Genesis 25:28). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy Esau had for Jacob, as it is stated: “Esau hated Jacob [because of the blessing with which his father blessed him]” (Genesis 27:41). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jacob had for Joseph, as it is stated: “Israel loved Joseph more than his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that his brothers had for him, as it is stated: “His brothers were jealous of him” (Genesis 37:11). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that Jonathan had for David, as it is stated: “Jonathan loved him as himself” (I Samuel 18:1). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that Saul had for David, as it is stated: “Saul eyed David with suspicion” (I Samuel 18:9). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that a man has for his wife, as it is stated: “Enjoy life with a woman whom you love” (Ecclesiastes 9:9). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – the jealousy that he has regarding her when he says to her: Do not speak with so-and-so, and she goes and speaks with him, and immediately, “a spirit of jealousy passes over him and he is jealous of his wife” (Numbers 5:14). Another matter: “For love is as intense as death” – the love that the generation of persecution had for the Holy One blessed be He, as it is stated: “For we are killed all day long for You” (Psalms 44:23). “Jealousy is as cruel as the grave” – as the Holy One blessed be He is destined to have great zealotry on behalf of Zion. That is what is written: “So said the Lord [of hosts]: I became zealous for Zion with great zealotry” (Zechariah 8:2). “Its sparks are the sparks of fire, a great conflagration” – Rabbi Berekhya said: Like the supernal fire; the fire does not quench water and the water does not extinguish fire.

Why does Rabbi Yoshiah say: "Do not read Matzot, but read: Mitzvot?" Furthermore, he applies the word ושמרתם to all commandments while this paragraph has dealt exclusively with matters related to Passover and Matzot! Another difficulty is the definition of the word ושמרתם by Rashi to mean not allowing an existing condition to continue. Normally the word שמירה means that an existing condition is to be preserved. When the Torah says of Jacob ואביו שמר את הדבר, "His father kept this matter in mind" (Joseph's dream Genesis 37,11), it certainly meant that this condition would be preserved. As a rule, whenever a commentator uses the phrase אל תקרי, "do not read, etc.," there is some proof in the text that would cause us to read it differently. What is the proof in this case?

Let us now examine in what way the different Rabbis quoted in this Midrash differ. What nuances in the verse did each Rabbi find that he based his comment on? The central theme mentioned in the verse is "ועשיתם אתם." The word אתם seems superfluous. Even the word ועשיתם, is not needed, since the Torah could simply have said ואת מצותי תשמרו ותעשו. Why did the Torah have to say: ועשיתם אתם? Rabbi Chanina seems to explain this verse in the sense that I have written, that preoccupation with Torah should be לשמה, as I have defined; he will then be considered as having done the many things that he was unable to actually perform. The word תשמרו which precedes the word ועשיתם, would refer to study of Torah just as Rashi explained in Deut. 4,6: ושמרתם refers to study, ועשיתם to performance. The word שמירה would even include someone waiting patiently for the opportunity to perform a certain מצוה to present itself.

Esau was the exact opposite. He represented קנאה, jealousy, and שנאה, hatred. Jealousy is the exact opposite of truth. The attribute of truth is defined as a preparedness to admit that something is objectively so, without one denying it or misrepresenting it (even if one puts oneself in a bad light thereby). When the prophet Ovadiah in the verse quoted describes the house of Esau as becoming straw, קש, the letters in that word are the respective first letters of קנאה and שנאה. Now that the brothers had become guilty of being jealous of Joseph and hating him, as we know from 37,4 and 37,11, they became victims of Esau in this world. Since ten of the brothers were guilty of such feelings, the Romans tortured ten outstanding Jewish scholars to death, the ones commonly known as עשרה הרוגי מלכות, whom Jewish liturgy eulogized in the poem אלה אזכרה recited on the Day of Atonement. The ten scholars involved were re-incarnations of the ten brothers of Joseph who had taken part in selling him. This is stated in the book Heychalot. Rabbi Yishmael said: "The day the instructions came to torture Jewish sages to death was on a Thursday. Originally, four sages were to be arrested, Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava and Rabbi Yehudah ben Damah. Eight thousand scholars in Jerusalem were prepared to offer themselves in lieu of these four leaders. When Rabbi Nechunyah ben Hakanah realised that the decree would not be revoked, he "lowered me" to the מרכבה, and I interceded with the שר הפנים in the Celestial Regions. The שר הפנים told me that the Supreme Court in Heaven had decreed that ten eminent scholars were to be handed over to Samael, the Celestial representative of Rome. The reason for the decree was to carry out on the bodies of leaders of Israel the penalty imposed on kidnappers as per Exodus 21,16: "If someone kidnaps a person, sells him and is found out, he shall be executed." [According to Sanhedrin 85, the words "found out" mean that there were witnesses to the deed already before the sale. Ed.]

שמור את יום השבת, “to observe the Sabbath day.” In the first version of the Ten Commandments the Torah wrote: זכור את יום השבת, “to remember the Sabbath day.” This was in order to remind the people of the Sabbath each week as they were not to go out looking for manna. Now, in the fortieth year, when the people had been familiar with the manna since the day they were born, it was more appropriate for Moses to underline the importance of the observance of the commandments related to Sabbath observance. Another interpretation for the difference in the terminology used on these two occasions for the law to keep the Sabbath day. The expression שמר also means “to remember.” It was used first by Yaakov when Joseph related the dream to him in which sun, moon and eleven stars bowed down to him (Genesis 37,11) The word שמר refers to long term remembering. Yaakov/Joseph had to wait for 22 years until they understood the meaning of that dream. זכור, on the other hand, refers to remembering for a short period of time. This is like the person who waits all day long for the arrival of the Shabbat so that he can properly sanctify it, like Rabbi Yannai who would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, my bride; come, my bride. It is also possible that the expression זכור is addressed to people embarking on protracted voyages on the sea, where they may lose track of time, whereas the expression שמור is addressed to people living on dry land.

שומר הברית, “He keeps His covenant;” the word שומר here means: “waiting in anticipation,” as it did in Genesis 37,11 where Yaakov was described as awaiting fulfillment of Joseph’s dream with the words: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “and his father remained in expectation of what would happen.”

באשמורת הבקר, “during the morning watch;” Rashi claims that seeing that the night is divided in accordance with the songs of the angels in heaven, these watches are called אשמורת. This word means “waiting for;” the angels have to be on time so as not to miss the turn allocated to them. We find the root שמר used in this context when Yaakov, hearing Joseph’s last dream is reported to have taken it seriously and he was waiting how that dream would play out. (Compare Genesis 37,11: ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father kept track of the matter.”)

It would have been more appropriate to say, “Blessed is the One who kept His promises….” if we are speaking of the Exodus. Also our text states, מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב, “The Holy One calculates the end, to do…” It should have stated, חִשֵּׁב “Who calculated.” (Note that many Sephardic and Ashkenazic texts actually do have חִשֵּׁב Hishev, calculated, while Rabbi Foa’s text says Michashev, “calculates.” Many of the variations in the manuscripts of the Haggadah text have, מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב. He now asks why the text doesn’t say חִשֵּׁב “calculated” instead of מְחַשֵּׁ֥ב “calculates.”) But the intention of the Maggid is to make known to us what God is doing for us. God continues “To keep” the promise that was made to Abraham (and is still calculating the endtime). The word shomer, is similar to the language in the verse, “And his father kept ( שָׁמַ֥ר ) the matter in mind.” (That is, Jacob kept the matter private regarding Joseph’s dreams… Similarly in our verse God kept the promise of four hundred years of slavery private but never forgot his promise to Abraham’s descendents.) (Gen. 37:11) That is, God hid and kept the promise in mind until they had completed the four hundred years that God told Abraham his descendents would be enslaved and afflicted (before being redeemed.) Since they were only enslaved in Egypt for two hundred and ten years, there remained another hundred and ninety years for our people to complete the exile. If Israel had not continued to sin the exile would not have continued more than one hundred and ninety more years. But since they had to atone for the sins and guilt that they committed day after day, causing troubles and afflictions to overcome them constantly. As a result, they only deducted a small number of the extra years after the golden calf. (See BT Sanhedrin 102a - “Rabbi Yitzḥak says: You have no punishment that comes to the world in which there is not one twenty-fourth of the surplus of a litra of the first calf. When weighing a substance, there would often be a disparity of up to one twenty-fourth of its weight. as it is stated: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them” (Ex. 32:34), indicating that atonement for that sin is incomplete, and the Jewish people will continue to suffer for it. “ (Sefaria) The idea here is because of all their sins - they only remove a small amount of their guilt for worshiping the Golden Calf with each act. Thus the 190 years get added on to their other transgressions drawing out their punishment. When the 190 years are complete, redemption will come.) When they complete the 190 years, the redeemer will come and redeem them. That is why we calculate the redemption/end time based on the 190 years - the Ketz. If Israel had been meritorious (and not sinned) then redemption would have hastened and their suffering would have taken place in the count of 190 years. It is to this that Maggid refers when it states, “Blessed is the one who keeps His promise.” The Maggid states that God calculates the end and it does not say that God calculated the end. (With each sin and transgression God has to recalculate the end time…..) God constantly calculates all of the oppressions that will come upon us during this exile, and how much will be added to the reckoning of 190 years in order to fulfill what God said to Abraham at the Covenant of the Pieces. Was not the purpose of the Covenant of the Pieces to judge the nations that afflicted Us, as it states, “But I will execute judgment on the nation they shall serve…” (Gen. 15:14) This means not only those nations that afflicted us by taking our wealth and our lives will be judged for such judgment would not purify Israel. Rather, “the nation that they served” is Egypt. It would appear that this was not meant to be seen as a punishment of the Egyptians since God had decreed that Israel would be enslaved. Rather God decreed that they should be judged for the abominations they committed, how they committed evil acts, and Egypt’s stubborness in not listening to God.

ושמרתם לעשות, "And you will observe to carry out, etc." Inasmuch as the commandments which Moses is about to convey are all of the kind that can be performed only in ארץ ישראל, Moses applies the term שמירה [usually reserved for the avoidance of violating negative commandments, Ed.] much as we read in Genesis 37,11 that ואביו שמר את הדבר, "his father remained aware of the matter" (Joseph's dream about the brothers and his father and mother bowing down to him). Moses meant by this word that the Israelites should constantly look forward to the opportunity to carry out these commandments although at the time he spoke to them they had no opportunity to fulfil these מצות. He concluded by saying אלה החוקים "these are the statutes." Commandments such as the one to wipe out locations where the Canaanites had worshiped idols, he called "statutes," as they applied only once the Israelites were in that country. They could not carry out this commandment until they had conquered the land.

ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת, "The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, etc." Why did the Torah add another "observance?" Besides, why does the Torah use the verb לעשות, "to do," which expresses an activity when the meaning seems to be that the children of Israel are to observe the Sabbath by "abstaining" from a number of activities? Our sages have pursued their own path in explaining this wording.

The meaning of the word ושמרו may also follow the meaning of the word in Genesis 37,11 where Jacob is described as awaiting realisation of Joseph's dream and the word chosen by the Torah is ושמר. In our context the Torah means that the Sabbath should not be considered as a burden because many activities are prohibited on that day, but that it should be eagerly awaited and looked forward to. The words לעשות את השבת are designed to counter the prevailing perception that the Sabbath is a day on which one is passive, rests up and treats it as a day on which to indulge one's laziness. The basic purpose of the Sabbath is not to provide physical rest for the body but to actively fulfil the various commandments associated with the Sabbath.

שמר לך, "Observe for yourself, etc.!" How does the term "observe" apply to the subject matter of this verse? If the Torah refers to the commandment G'd is about to reveal as something Moses is to "observe" as Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra suggests, why would G'd select this commandment of not concluding a covenant with the seven Canaanite nations rather than any other of the many commandments as something for Moses to be very careful about? After all, Moses had already been told that it was not he who would conquer these nations What point was there in warning him specifically not to conclude such a covenant?

Perhaps there is a lesson here about how true repentance works. Seeing the Israelites had become guilty of worshiping an idol, the תקון, rehabilitation, for such a sin required that they destroy everything even remotely connected with idolatry if they wanted to attain complete atonement for their sin. This required that they cultivate a strong abhorrence for all forms of idolatry starting already now, long before they would displace the idolatrous Canaanites and destroy any vestiges of idol worship the Canaanites had been guilty of. The verb שמר may perhaps be understood in the sense that Jacob used it when he heard Joseph's dream with the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars bowing down to him. At that time (Genesis 37,11), Jacob had begun to look forward to the way this dream would become fulfilled. The Israelites (including Moses) were now meant to look forward to the time when they could carry out the commandment G'd was about to give them.

It is also possible to explain the directive: “you shall be holy” at the beginning of our Parshah as applying to the sanctity of one’s thoughts, one’s intentions, similar to what the sages said (Shevuot 18) that when engaging in the act of marital relations with his wife both parties should harbour only pure thoughts, not wanting to merely indulge their libido. Seeing that such purity of thought at such a time has a genetic impact on the kind of children produced through the act of cohabitation, the Torah even referred to the children born as having been born “for Me” (compare Ezekiel 23,37: “and even their children which they had born to Me they passed before them the idols, -specifically the Moloch-that they may be consumed”). The prophet speaks of children conceived in holiness as children born to G’d. This is applicable to all the Israelites whose existence is dedicated to G’d. The reason this paragraph is addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel,” is because these laws apply to males and females equally. When Moses assembled the people and gave them the directive to build the Tabernacle and for the Israelites to donate materials for that project we also find the directive addressed to כל עדת בני ישראל, “the entire community of the Children of Israel” (Exodus 35,1). There too the directive was addressed directly to the males and the female members of the community. The reason for the formula איש אמו ואביו תיראו, is that there are three partners involved in bringing about the birth of a human being, G’d, father, and mother (Kidushin 30). The Torah mentions the mother first as it is a great achievement for the mother to attain the level of sanctity desired when she cohabits with her husband. The father, partner number two, is mentioned next as his contribution to the fetus is critical, i.e. his sperm is the most important ingredient. G’d is mentioned last as He contributes the soul, an essential component, (but only after husband and wife have already started the fetus). The words: “I am the Lord your G’d” at the end of the verse describe that G’d is the third party in the creation of the baby. The third partner, G’d, is alluded to in the words “and observe My Sabbaths,” seeing that amongst observant people cohabitation takes place primarily on Friday nights. The word תשמרו, is appropriately translated as “waiting.” We find the word שמר used in this sense in connection with Yaakov “waiting for something to occur” when told of a dream his son Joseph had which on the face of it defied interpretation (Genesis 37,11). Our sages in Berachot 3 use the word in a similar manner when they speak about שמר לי על הפתח, as the subject Elijah there waiting for Rabbi Yossi. The prophet Isaiah 56,4 speaks of the Lord having an encouraging message for the eunuchs and sterile men who observe the Sabbaths (although unable to sire children and hope for G’d’s partnership being manifest in the children they will father, resp. not father). The subject there are not people unable to produce viable sperm but people who deny themselves the opportunity of cohabiting with their wives except on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbaths. Our sages interpret the words אשר פריו יתן בעתו, “someone (normally tree) who will give its fruit at its appropriate time” (Psalms 1,3) as an allusion to people who indulge in cohabitation with their wives only on Friday nights, thus observing the Sabbath in a special manner (compare Ketuvot 62). G’d rewards such people by granting them יד ושם טוב מבנים ובנות, “a memorial and name better that physical sons and daughters.” [This is the end of the verse in Isaiah 56,4 and ignores the literal promise of that verse which is understood as consoling people who have no children by suggesting that there are greater rewards than biological offspring. Ed.]

Watched (shomer) her mouth: He watched and analyzed her mouth - what was this long prayer? He did not hear her voice, "only her lips moved." Therefore he thought her to be drunk. And Yonatan translated it [in the Targum] as, shomer, like, await - as in (Genesis 37:11), "he shamar the thing"; (Job 14:16), "and not tishmor my sin." And the explanation of, "her mouth," is like her utterance and her speech. And likewise did Yonatan translate it as, "and he waited for her until she ceased."

שמורים, represents an element of “waiting for something.” It is used in this sense in Genesis 37,11 ואביו שמר את הדבר, “his father waited to see what would happen in this matter.”

He who watches [waits] for the wind. He who waits and looks forward for the wind to come. (שמר הרוח cannot means “watching” a wind, Rashi therefore explains that שומר הרוח means “waiting” for the wind. שומר is used in the same context in Bereishis 37:11, which states, “his father waited [שומר]” to see when Yoseif’s dream would be fulfilled. (Sifsei Chachomim) )

And there are high ones. He has [many agents] over them to punish them when their time of visitation arrives, as in, “you do not wait תִּשְׁמוֹר for my sin,” (Iyov 14:16. ) [and as in,] “awaiting שֹׁמֵר the realization,” (Yeshayahu 26:2. ) [and as in,] “awaited שָׁמַר the matter.” (Bereishis 37:11. God waits, but ultimately He will punish them in the proper time. )

Watched. An expression of waiting, as in, "[and his father] kept the matter in mind ]שָׁמַר[" (Bereishis 37:11.) i.e., waited, [and similarly] "do not wait [תִשְׁמוֹר] for my sin." (Iyov 14:16.)

awaiting (שֹׁמֵר) waiting. Comp. (Gen. 37:11) “And his father awaited (שָׁמַר) the matter.” Similarly (Deut. 7:12), “And the Lord, your God, shall await (וְשָׁמַר) the covenant for you.”

You do not wait Heb. תשמר. You do not wait for my sin to requite me, as (Gen. 37:11), “but his father awaited (שמר) the matter,” and in the language of the Mishnah (Sanh. 63b): “A person may not say to his companion, ‘Wait (שמר) for me beside such and such a pagan deity.’” [It is] an expression of waiting.

Nor as a widow waiting for my yavam, nor when married - and if she was his yevamah and he married her and warned her, and she secluded herself, he can extend an oath onto her that she was not defiled while she was a "shomeret yavam". A "shomeret yavam" is one who is anticipating and waiting for her yavam to marry her through levirate marriage. ["Shomeret" is] in the sense of "and his father kept the matter in mind" [Genesis 37:11] and "You would not keep watch over my sin" [Job 14:16].

[111] He saw, the text says, another dream and told it to his father and brethren, and said “it was as though the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.” And his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream that thou hast dreamt? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to do obeisance to thee on the earth?” And his brothers were angry with him, but his father kept the saying in memory (Gen. 37:9–11).

[141] There is a further excellent lesson in the words, “The father retained the saying” (Gen. 37:11). For surely it is the business of a soul which is no youngster nor barren nor sterile but verily an elder and skilled in parenthood, to take caution for its lifemate, to despise nothing at all but to crouch in awe before the power of God which none can evade or defeat, and to look with circumspection to see what end shall befall it.

§ 65. (The twelve sons of Jacob and the Zodiac.) For this connexion of the twelve tribes and their founders with the Twelve Signs cf. De Som. ii. 111 ff., where Philo is discussing Gen. 37:9–11, where Joseph says “the sun and moon and eleven stars did obeisance to me,” thus “classing himself as the twelfth to complete the Zodiac.”

The story of Yosef’s descent into slavery and exile began when his father sent him, alone, to see how the brothers were faring. Immediately prior to this episode, the Torah tells us about the second of Yosef’s dreams: “The sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.” When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” (Bereshit 37:9–11).

His brothers were jealous of him but his father kept the matter in mind.

And his brothers envied him; yet his father kept the saying in his heart.

The melody is also beneficial for the shepherd himself. Because the shepherd is constantly in the company of animals, it could happen that they draw and drag him down from the category of human-spirit to animal-spirit. The shepherd might end up grazing himself, as in “they went to pasture their father’s flock…” (Genesis 37:12), which Rashi explains as: they went to pasture themselves.

Going astray in the field. Yoseif thought the time had come for the fulfillment of his dream and that his brothers would bow to him in the field, but the angel came to warn him that he was “astray” and must not speak to them of this matter.

לרעות את אחיו את צאן אביהם, “to assist his brothers in tending the flocks of their father.” The reason that there are two dots over the word את in this verse is that the brothers had not gone to the neighbourhood of Sh’chem in order to look after their father’s flocks, but only to look after their own, and to put more mileage between themselves and Joseph. In other words, that word may be considered as if erased. They had not gone to also tend their father’s flocks. We find a similar construction in Michah 7,14: ירעו בשן וגלעד, “the ones which graze in Bashan and Gilead,” where we would have expected the prophet to say: ירעו את בשן ואת גלעד, “They will graze both in Bashan and in Gilead,” [the prophet continues with the words: “as in the olden days,” (when things were better). If you were to interpret the word את in our verse to mean that the brothers had gone to let the flocks graze in a place where there was ample virgin (not privately owned grazing land), or that it means to let their own as well as their fathers’ flocks graze there, there is no possible reason to omit the word את, as we always find it in connection with sheep or cattle grazing.

וילכו אחיו לרעות צאן, there are dots above the letters of the word את. The sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 suggest that the Torah meant that the brothers were tending themselves, i.e. they distanced themselves from their father in order to escape supervision and to follow their personal inclinations in matters of food and drink and to do in Shechem whatever they felt like doing. They were not afraid at all of the inhabitants of that city whose male population they had killed only a year or two earlier. They had complete confidence in G’d‘s protection. The Canaanite population in the region lived in awe of the sons of Yaakov. They had been afraid of them already at the time when they executed the male population of Schechem for being accessories to the rape of Dinah.

לרעות את צאן TO FEED THE FLOCK — The word את has dots above it, to denote that they went only to feed themselves (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

There are dots on the word את indicating that they went only to “pasture” themselves. Rashi means that if there were no dots on את, it would be connected to צאן, and mean “to pasture the sheep.” But now that it has dots, it is as if the את was not written at all. Consequently, לרעות is not connected to the next word, and means: “They went to pasture.” I.e., to pasture themselves. And צאן אביהם בשכם is a separate statement. But if את was completely omitted from the verse, it would not prove the point. Surely we could still say it means “to pasture themselves,” but it would be more logical to say that the words are connected, and form one statement. Thus, although the את would be omitted, we would say it is an abbreviated verse. But now that את is written, and it has dots, it is considered as erased. This indicates that the words are not connected; they are rather two statements. Otherwise, why does it have dots?

His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem.

“To pasture their father’s flock” [37:12]. The children went to pasture themselves. That is to say, they had their father’s sheep. They ate from the sheep and were pasturing themselves, without their father’s knowledge. Therefore, the word “et” is written with two dots over it in the Torah. This shows us that the sheep also fed the brothers. That is, they ate from the sheep. Therefore, they did even more evil things to their brother Joseph. That is to say, they ate their fill of their father’s sheep and they sold their brother Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:12; Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:12 note 7.)

“All those counted of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron counted by the directive of the Lord, by their families, all males from one month old and above, were twenty-two thousand” (Numbers 3:39). “All those counted of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron [ve’aharon] counted” – the vav in ve’aharon is dotted because Aaron was not part of the census. (He was not counted, nor did he participate with Moses in the census.) Similarly, “may the Lord judge between me and you [uveinekha]” (Genesis 16:5) – as she said it only regarding Hagar alone. (There is a dot over the yod in uveinekha, indicating that Sarah did not demand that God punish Abraham.) Some say, it was regarding those who introduce discord between him and her. (While this interpretation also maintains that Sarah was referring to Hagar, it is not based on the dot over the yod, but rather on understanding “between me and you” as referring to one who introduces discord between them.) Similarly, “They said to him [elav]: Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9) – the alef in elav is dotted, as they knew where she was but made inquiries about her. Similarly, “He did not know when she lay down and when she arose [uvkuma]” (Genesis 19:33) – the vav in the middle of uvkuma regarding the elder daughter is dotted; he did not know when she lay down, but he knew when she arose. Similarly, “he kissed him [vayishakehu] (Genesis 33:4) (Esau kissed Jacob.) – it is dotted, because he did not kiss him with all his heart. Similarly, “his brothers went to herd et” (Genesis 37:12) – why is it dotted over et? It teaches that they did not go to herd, but rather to eat, drink, and be seduced. Similarly, “or on a distant [reḥoka] journey” (Numbers 9:10) – the ḥet of reḥoka is dotted. (While the midrash here states that there is a dot on the ḥet, the Mishna (Pesaḥim 93b) and other sources state that the dot is on the heh. In our Torah scrolls the dot is on the heh.) It teaches that even if it was not a distant journey, but just outside the threshold of the courtyard of the Temple. Some say, even if it was a near journey, but it (The path which he has to take to reach the Temple (Etz Yosef).) is impure, he would not perform the rite of the paschal offering with them. Similarly, “we laid waste until Nofaḥ that [asher]” (Numbers 21:30) – the reish in asher is dotted, as it was so even beyond there. Some say: It teaches that they did not destroy the entire country, but rather the large cities. Similarly, “You shall offer one-tenth [isaron isaron] for each” (Numbers 29:15) – the first isaron of the first day of the festival is dotted. It teaches that there was only one one-tenth alone. (Namely, there was only a one-tenth measure, and for sacrifices which require two-tenths or three-tenths, each tenth would be measured separately.) Similarly, “The concealed are for the Lord our God, but the revealed are for us and for our children [lanu ulvaneinu] forever [ad olam]” (Deuteronomy 29:28) – why is it dotted over lanu ulvaneinu and the ayin of ad? He said to them: ‘If you perform the revealed, I will inform you of the concealed.’ Some say: Why is it dotted? Rather, this is what Ezra said: If Elijah will come and say: Why did you write them? (I.e., you should not have written them.) I will say to him: I dotted above them. If he will say: You wrote them well, I will erase the dots from above them.

“His brothers envied him; but his father kept the matter in mind” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers envied him; but his father kept [the matter] in mind” – Rabbi Levi said: He took a quill and wrote on which day, at which hour, at what place. (He recorded all the details of Joseph’s recounting of the dream so he could refer back to it. This indicated that he believed in the dream. ) Rabbi Ḥiyya Rabba said: “But his father kept the matter in mind” – the Divine Spirit was saying: Keep these matters in mind because they are destined to occur. Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: This is what our patriarch Jacob believed. He saw that these matters were impending. (Jacob saw that he was in fact destined to bow to Joseph (Matnot Kehuna). ) He said: If his ledger was scrutinized, what can I do? (If my ledger has been scrutinized, meaning if my own record has been scrutinized in heaven and I am destined to bow to my own son as a result of my sins, so be it (Matnot Kehuna). )

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

The Yosef narrative is marked by a glaring textual difficulty – the insertion of the Yehuda/Tamar episode at a critical moment in the description of Yosef’s sale into slavery. The events leading up to the sale of Yosef begin in Genesis 37:12. (Please read Genesis 37:12 through Genesis 39:1 for a complete grasp of the midrashic discussion.) Genesis 37:19–28 describes the brothers’ initial plan to kill Yosef and the discussion that leads first to their casting him into the pit, and then to the final decision to sell him. Verses 29–35 describe the aftermath of that decision and its particular effects upon Reuven and Yaakov. Verse 36 ends the passage (Fortuitously for our purposes, in the case of chapters 37–39, there is agreement between the traditional Jewish divisions of the biblical text (according to parasha, indicated by the spacing in the Torah scroll) and the later Christian divisions (indicated by chapter and verse numberings). The Christian numbering of chapters and verses is employed virtually everywhere in the Jewish world as a useful convention for ordering the Tanakh. In these three chapters at least, the chapter divisions reflect the Jewish tradition, which makes it easier to show the interpretive problems posed by the interpolation of the Tamar and Yehuda story into the Yosef narrative.) with the statement: “And the Midianites sold him [Yosef] to Egypt, to Potiphar, Par’oh’s chamberlain, the chief executioner.”

ויצוו אל יוסף AND THEY COMMANDED SOME TO GO TO JOSEPH — The words ויצוו אל have the same meaning as in (Exodus 6:13) “and He gave them a charge unto (ויצום אל) the children of Israel”, which signifies, “He commanded Moses and Aaron to act as messengers to the children of Israel”, and this verse, too, means they charged the man whom they sent that he should act as their messenger to Joseph to speak to him as follows (the words לומר לו כן correspond to לאמר in the Bible text here). And who was it that they so charged? The sons of Bilhah who had been accustomed to associate with him, as it is said (Genesis 37:12) “When a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah” (Tanchuma Yashan 2:1:2).

There are dots over ואהרן. Meaning that only Moshe was involved in the counting of the Levites. (The dots imply that the word should not really be there, as if it were erased. See Bereishis, 33:4.) However, since both of them were involved in the count of the Israelites it is the manner of the Torah to write like this. Even though he did not take part in the count of the Levites he was still mentioned along with the count. There are those who explain Rashi’s words “he was not included in the counting of the Levites” to mean that he was not one of those who was counted. This is also implied in Tractate Bechoros 4a. However this raises a difficulty because the verse refers to those who did the counting — “whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — and not to those who were counted (Re’m). It appears to me that the correct explanation is as follows: The dots above Aharon’s name imply that he was not included in those who did the counting nor in those who were counted, because if not so why would the Torah mention Aharon and then place dots over his name. Therefore, so that you do not [mistakenly] say that he was not included in doing the counting, but he was one of those who were counted, there are dots over his name to teach that he was absent from everything, even those who were counted. This explanation is somewhat similar to the explanation that I gave for the words את צאן (Bereishis 37:12) where there are dots over את. Even though this explanation is somewhat forced, it helps to resolve a difficulty so that Rashi’s explanation in Chumash will not contradict his explanation in Tractate Bechoros where he explicitly says that Aharon was not included in the count. Similarly one can understand the statement of Bamidbar Rabbah: “The number of all the Levites whom Moshe and Aharon counted” — there are dots over his name because Aharon was not included in the count. The statement implies that he was not included in those who were counted.

But that he was outside. You might ask: Then why did the Torah say “distant…”? The answer is that if it had said “on the road” but not said “distant” I would have said that only someone who is distant offers the Pesach Sheni. However if he is outside the threshold of the courtyard, then he would not. Therefore the Torah wrote “distant” and placed a dot over [the word] to expound that it does not mean literally “distant,” as I explained previously regarding “to pasture the flock” (Bereishis 37:12).

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots. There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).

Ten [letters or groups of letters] in the Torah are marked by dots: (The dots are placed above the letters. Cf. above, ARN XXXIV, p. 165 where the Rabbinical explanations are given.) In the Lord judge between me and thee (Gen. 16, 5.) there is a dot on the beth (So GRA. V and H ‘the yod’.) of ubeneka (and between thee). In and they said unto him, (ibid. XVIII, 9.) there are dots on alef-yod-waw of ’elaw (unto him). In and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose, (ibid. XIX, 33.) the [second] waw in ubekumah (nor when she arose) is marked with a dot. In and kissed him, (ibid. XXXIII, 4.) the entire word wayyishshaḳehu is marked by dots. In and his brethren went to feed their father’s flock, (ibid. XXXVII, 12.) the letters of ’eth (the mark of the defined accusative) are dotted. In whom Moses and Aaron numbered (Num. 3, 39.) the word Aaron is marked with dots. In or be in a journey afar off, (ibid. IX, 10.) the he in reḥoḳah (afar off) has a dot. In and we have laid waste even unto Nopha, which (ibid. XXI, 30.) the resh in ’asher (which) has a dot. In and a several tenth part, (ibid. XXIX, 15.) in the section dealing with the first day of the festival of Tabernacles, the second waw in we’issaron (and a tenth part) has a dot. In the secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, (Deut. 29, 28. [H more correctly, ‘unto us and to our children and the ‘ayin in עד’. Cf. Sanh. 43b (Sonc. ed., p. 285, n. 4) and ARN above, p. 166.]) the ‘ayin in ‘ad (for) has a dot.

His brothers went off to pasture their father’s sheep in Shechem.

And his brothers went to feed their father's flock in Shekem.

Know!… tzitzit protects against immorality… on both their SheKheM (shoulders)… a reference to tzitzit . [See section 4, above.] This is (Genesis 37:13), “Your brothers are shepherding in SheKheM”—an allusion to the tzitzit, which protects against immorality. [The tzitzit] corresponds to guarding the Covenant, which in turn applies to Yosef. Yaakov therefore said to Yosef, “Your brothers are shepherding in Shekhem”—which is your aspect. “Come, let me send you to them.”

?הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, “are your brothers not tending flocks in Sh’chem (a dangerous place?) Seeing that they had killed all the males of that town and looted it (Genesis 34,2529).[It occurs to this editor that the reason they had chosen to do so was to show their father that they were less worried about the local population than about Joseph lording it over them. Ed.]

HERE AM I. I will do as you say. (If Jacob called Joseph then the proper response would be here am I, as in Here am I, for thou didst call me (I Sam. 3:6). However, in our verse it comes as a response to Jacob’s command. Hence I.E.’s point that in our verse it has the meaning of: I am at your service (Filwarg).)

לכה ואשלחך אליהם, "come let me send you to them;" The word לכה implied that Joseph should go visit his brothers. In the event he had qualms, however, Jacob added that he would make him a שליח של מצוה, a messenger on a divine mission, i..e fulfilling the commandment of obeying his father. This would protect him against harm (compare Pessachim 8).

ויאמר...הלא אחיך, don’t you know that your brothers are in Shechem, tending flocks?

הנני; he was not afraid of his brothers even though they hated him, for he thought that their awe of their father was greater than their desire to harm him. His father also did not think that the brothers posed a threat to his favourite son. Surely, if he had even entertained the slightest concern about the brothers harming Joseph, he would never have sent him on this mission. This entire matter was engineered by G’d Who knows the evil machinations of man in order that this would become the external cause of the patriarchs, i.e. their descendants to descend to Egypt and to fulfill the prophecy G’d had already told Avraham about in chapter 15.

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם, the wording reflects Yaakov's surprise that Joseph’s brothers chose to tend their sheep in a dangerous location such as Shechem where they had killed the local inhabitants not so long ago. (this is what I heard from Rabbi Yoseph Karo our colleague. I enjoyed his interpretation greatly. [this was not original as it is found in Targum Yerushalmi. David Rosin, Ed.]

הנני HERE AM I — An expression denoting humility and readiness: he was zealous to perform his father’s bidding, although he was aware that his brothers hated him (Genesis Rabbah 84:13).

Jakob fühlt den Bruch zwischen Josef und den Brüdern, will ihn sich nicht erweitern lassen und zugleich sein Brudergefühl auf die Probe stellen. Er gibt ihm zuerst keinen Auftrag; sagt vielmehr: es ist besser, daß ich dich zu ihrer Herde schicke, daß du bei ihnen seiest. Josef ist sofort bereit. Sein Gemüt ist ja rein. Sein Herz weiß ja nichts davon, Fürst oder Herrscher sein zu wollen.

הלא אחיך רועים בשכם?, Yaakov implied that it was not very far from their home to Shechem. [this seems a bit strange as it is about 100km by air, surely quite a distance for an unaccompanied young man of 17 to travel all by himself. Ed.]

A term indicating humility and readiness. You might ask: Why did Rashi not give this explanation on (22:11) אברהם אברהם ויאמר הנני, and on (Shemos 3:4) משה משה ויאמר הנני? The answer is: Here, הנני cannot be a way of answering [when called], as Yaakov was already speaking with him. For it is written, “Yisrael said to Yoseif, ‘Are your brothers not pasturing...’”

Israel said to Joseph: Aren’t your brothers herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. It is normal for a flock to spend weeks or even months outside its pen. Jacob wished to maintain contact with his sons, who had wandered with the flock all the way from Hebron to Shekhem. He, Joseph, said to him: Here I am.

“He answered, I am ready” [37:13]. Jacob said to Joseph: go to your brothers. They are pasturing in Shechem. Joseph responded: I am ready. Even though Joseph knew well that his brothers hated him and it was dangerous for him to go to his brothers, yet he would go, out of respect for his father. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:13.)

(1) There is no firm evidence that the city of Shechem mentioned in the books of the prophets is identical with the town near which Dinah was raped. There are pointers that suggest that this was not the same city. If the brothers were tending sheep at Shechem while their homes were at Chevron, Shechem must be presumed to have been less than a day's walk away. It is unreasonable to assume that Jacob sent Joseph all by himself on a journey of several days, as would have been the case if Shechem mentioned there were identical with the Nablus of today. In particular, seeing that so much bloodshed had taken place there, it would have been irresponsible to send a seventeen-year old into such hostile country all by himself. Even the brothers themselves were hardly likely to provoke the local population by grazing their flocks in their vicinity. We must assume therefore that Ir Shechem means the city of Shechem in the same sense as Ir David means "the capital of David's kingdom." The author explains how to dispose of apparently contradictory comments by the Talmud in Sanhedrin 102. (2) The reference to Dinah being a daughter of Leah is undoubtedly complimentary. The Torah, by referring to her ancestry, emphasizes that she had nothing but the best of intentions, that her excursion did not indicate a departure from traditional Jewish conduct. The repetition of the three expressions "He took her, he lay with her, he forced her" indicate that she remained uncooperative during all three phases of what is being described; she did not weaken in her resistance in any way. The reason three actions are mentioned is because Jacob's family suffered three indignities: A) The shame suffered by the whole family; B) The damage done to the girl's innocence and the loss of her virginity; C) The physical pain caused Dinah when she had to submit to violence. The punishment for the first of these indignities prescribed by the Torah is boshet, compensation in financial terms. The second indignity which reduced Dinah's value as a prospective bride in the compensation for the victim. It is noteworthy that Dinah did not lose her appeal for Shechem on account of any of the indignities he had heaped upon her. "He cleaved to the daughter of Jacob" (34,3). The family of Jacob had not become sullied in his eyes; he loved her just as before (not like Amnon who lost all his desire for Tamar once he had raped her). Shechem tried to talk softly to Dinah's heart to help her recover from her pain. (3) The order in which the Torah describes the arrival of the sons, after Chamor had already arrived at Jacob's house, is to exonerate Jacob from any implication in his sons' subsequent actions, since there had not been an opportunity for them to consult. That is why Jacob on his deathbed refers to "in their secret counsel let my soul not be involved" (Genesis 49,6). It is to underscore that he had not been a party to their plan. Obviously, the sons could not have heard about the event while being in the field. Therefore, we must understand the sequence of events thus: (34,7) "When the sons came home and heard what a shameful act had been perpetrated against Israel, namely that a daughter of Jacob had been slept with, something that could not be tolerated." (4) Chamor uses the future course of events in order to compensate for an injustice that could no longer be undone. He emphasizes that he does not only want to legitimize his relations with Dinah, but goes far beyond this, and this constitutes a great honor for Jacob. The king offers the freedom of the country to Jacob's family. The sons' reason for deceiving Chamor has already been discussed in the first part of this chapter. (5) When the brothers use the term tame, defiled, when referring to the rape and subsequently suggesting a compromise, they are already using deceit, since they conveyed the impression to Chamor and Shechem that they had calmed down already and that their suggestions therefore could be taken at face value, could be believed. An exact examination of the text reveals that in fact the brothers did not breach any contract, nor did they retract from their original position. This is the reason Onkelos translates the word mirmah, slyness, deceit, simply as chochmah, cleverness, wisdom. They said, "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man with a foreskin because it is a shame for us to forgive such an act." Chamor understood them to mean that the words "we cannot" refer only to the foreskin, not to the shame they had suffered. Similarly, Chamor understood their statement "if you will become like us," as referring only to the rite of circumcision, whereas the brothers used it in a wider sense meaning that they would have to embrace all aspects of the brothers' lifestyle and religion. Thereby they served notice that they were not going to forgive anything. We note that nowhere did the brothers promise that Dinah would become Shechem's wife. They only spoke in general terms, "our daughters," "your daughters," etc., and threatened to leave the neighborhood with their sister if their demands were not complied with. When Chamor reported in his city on these discussions, he represented the rape episode as having been resolved, and emphasized the future advantages to be gained by intermarrying with Jacob's family. The unexpected acceptance by the townspeople of the terms offered may have convinced the sons of Jacob that heaven had indicated its approval for their plan of revenge. (6) Possibly the "third day" referred to was the third day of the week, i.e. Tuesday, but in reality the first day after the circumcision. This day is under the constellation of Mars, and signals bloodshed. (7) The brothers had to prevent the wives and children from raising an alarm in the neighboring towns after they had killed the males. Therefore, the females and children had to be taken captive. Since abandoning the herds made no sense, and since their undertaking had evidently enjoyed the help of heaven, they felt entitled to acquire the livestock etc. The repeated outcry "May our sister be treated like a harlot?" underscores that to revenge such a misdeed, considerations of personal safety that are normally valid criteria, and which were part of the objections raised by Jacob, were not valid now. (8) Until now Jacob had not been certain that his dream about the ladder had been of a prophetic nature; he only became sure now that G-d spoke to him and identified Himself as having been the One to whom Jacob had made the vow at that time. (9) He was intent to remove any trace of idols that had been part of the loot his sons had taken from the city of Shechem and Chamor, and to remove any impurity acquired through contact with such idols. To this end, he instructed all his people to change their garments. Of course, the exhortation included the order to desist from any idolatrous practices that might have been picked up by his sons due to their contact with the idol worshippers. (12) The death of Deborah, a fine woman, may have been the final chapter in the sons' repentance of the whole Dinah episode, since we have a tradition that the death of righteous people provides atonement for the survivors. Inasmuch as all of Jacob's sons could qualify for the heritage promised to their forefathers, G-d repeats "to your descendants I will give the land," meaning to all of them, not like Esau or Ishmael who did not qualify though they too had been descendants of Isaac and Abraham respectively. (10) Contrary to the normal custom of a pupil departing from his master, in this case G-d departed from Jacob, the latter still remaining in his place. This suggests that Jacob's task had not yet been completed, prompting him to erect the monument and fulfil payment of his vow. It was here that the betrothal of Israel and G-d took place, later to be consummated by chuppah, a wedding ceremony at Mount Sinai. Details of this whole process will be discussed in Chapter forty-eight. (11) At the beginning of Rachel's labor, the midwife encouraged her saying, "Do not worry, this too will be a son for you." This gave rise to Rachel naming the child before she had even seen it. (13) It seems that Jacob had not been home at the time Reuben had rearranged the furnishings in Bilhah's bedroom. Reuben would not have dared to do this otherwise. The statement that the sons of Jacob were twelve may indicate that at that juncture Reuben lost his status as the firstborn, no longer counting as two (since the firstborn normally receives a double portion of the father's estate). More likely however, the Torah may stress that Reuben remained a full member of the Jewish people.

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

In what lies in the other ark it is written (Exodus 20) "I am the L–rd your G–d," and of Joseph it is written (Genesis 50:19) "Am I in the place of G–d?" In what lies in this ark it is written (Exodus 20) "There shall not be before you any other gods," and of Joseph it is written (Genesis 42:18) "It is G–d whom I fear." (Exodus 20) "You shall not take the name of the L–rd your G–d in vain." And of Joseph it is written (Genesis 42:15) "By the life of Pharaoh," (Joseph not swearing by "the life" of the L–rd.) (Exodus 20) "Remember the Sabbath day." Joseph (Genesis 42:16) "slaughter an animal and prepare it," "prepare" alluding to Sabbath eve, it being written here "prepare," and elsewhere (Exodus 16:5) "And it shall be on the sixth day that they shall prepare." (Exodus 20) "Honor your father." Joseph (Genesis 37:13) "And Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not grazing (the sheep) in Shechem? Go, and I will send you to them. And he said to him: Here I am" (at your service). Joseph knew that his brothers hated him, but he would not transgress the words of his father. (Exodus 20) "You shall not kill." He did not kill Potiphar (even though he could have.) (Exodus 20) "You shall not commit adultery." He did not commit adultery with the wife of Potiphar. (Exodus 20) "You shall not steal." He did not rob Pharaoh, viz. (Genesis 47:14) "And Joseph collected all of the money, etc." (Exodus 20) "You shall not testify falsely against your neighbor." Joseph did not tell his father what his brothers had done to him. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If he did not testify (against them) even truthfully, how much more so, falsely! (Exodus 20) "You shall not covet." He did not covet Potiphar's wife. It is written (Leviticus 19:17) "Do not hate your brother in your heart." And of Joseph it is written (Genesis 50:21) "And he counseled them and he spoke to their hearts." It is written (Leviticus 19:18) "You shall not take revenge and you shall not bear a grudge," and (in respect to Joseph, Genesis 50:20) "And you contemplated evil against me, but G–d contemplated it for the good." (Leviticus 25:36) "And let your brother live with you." (Genesis 47:12) "And Joseph sustained his father and his brothers, etc."...

This is what God said to Israel: My children what do I seek from you? I seek no more than that you love one another, and honor one another, and that you have awe for one another

[9] In order, then, that he may be taught better ideas than these, he is sent to men who hold that nothing is a good thing but what has true beauty, and that this is a property belonging to the soul as soul; men who are convinced that advantages pertaining to things outside and to the body are good things in name only, not in reality. For it says “Behold thy brethren tend their flocks,” and govern every irrational element of their being “in Sychem” (Gen. 37:13). “Sychem” means “shoulder,” a symbol of patient toil; for lovers of virtue carry a very great burden, namely resistance to the body and bodily pleasure, and in addition to these resistance to external things and the delights which they afford us.

Yisrael said to Yoseif, Aren’t your brothers pasturing [the sheep] in Shechem? Come, I will send you to them. He [Yoseif] said to him, Here I am.

And it was at the time of days that Israel said to Joseph, Do not thy brethren feed in Shekem? But I am afraid lest the Hivaee come and smite them, because they smote Hamor and Shekem and the inhabitants of the city. Come now; and I will send thee to them And he said, Behold me.

לך נא ראה את שלום אחיך, “please go and check whether everything is all right with your brothers!” Whenever the word נא appears in the Torah, it must be understood as a request rather than as an order. Yaakov told Joseph that although he hears every day reports about what the brothers were doing and where, it was no more than good manners that he, Joseph, should go and look them up, seeing that after all he was their brother.

ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing.

ואת שלום הצאן, “and check that everything is all right with the flocks.” From this we learn that should enquire if a person’s business is flourishing. וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he took leave of him in the valley below Chevron.” Seeing that Chevron is situated at the top of a mountain, we learn from here that Yaakov accompanied Joseph on the beginning of his journey, and that this is considered no more than good manners for anyone to copy. Our sages consider it as more than good manners, i.e. as a requirement. The subject of their conversation is supposed to have been the laws about how to deal with an anonymous corpse who had clearly been murdered, so that the people nearest to that location need not feel indirectly responsible (Deuteronomy chapter 21).

From the depths of Chevron. See Rashi. If Yaakov was concerned about the well being of ten grown men and their servants, how could he send the young Yoseif on his own to check up on them? Clearly this was the hand of Hashem.

לך נא ראה, "Please go and have a look, etc." Now Jacob spelled out the details of the commandment Joseph was to fulfil including bringing back a report to his father. This would make him his father's messenger both on the outward journey and on the return journey. If the bringing back of the report became a separate commandment this would act as protection for Joseph even according to the view in the Talmud that such messengers are enjoying divine protection only until they reach their destination. Jacob made sure that Joseph had two destinations. Joseph could now rest assured that he would return safely.

Jacob believed that despite the fact that the brothers hated Joseph and it was therefore not unlikely that he would be in danger, the מצוה he performed by obeying his father would protect him. He based himself on the following discussion in Pesachim 8. We are taught in a Baraita: When there is a hole in a wall dividing the property of a Jew from that of a Gentile, one needs to search for possible chametz as far as one's arm can reach. Plymo says that one does not have to endanger oneself in order to locate such chametz. The Talmud counters that Rabbi Eleazar has said that when one is engaged in the performance of a מצוה one is not liable to suffer harm. So why should considerations of danger prevent someone from searching for chametz? The Talmud answers that the rule of Rabbi Eleazar holds true only where danger is not likely to be encountered. The other rabbis who disagree with Plymo hold that the two situations are not alike. When danger is apparent, such as certain hornets having their lairs inside the holes of a wall, one endangers one's life frivolously by putting in one's arm searching for chametz. When the danger consists of the Gentile possibly accusing the Jew of engaging in sorcery because he performs an act such as looking for chametz, something that seems non-sensical to the Gentile this is no reason to desist and to rely on miracles instead. The Talmud cites the incident of Samuel enquiring of G'd how he could endanger himself carying out his command to anoint David when there was a price on David's head? G'd told him to pretend to go to Hebron to slaughter an animal for G'd (Samuel I 16,2). Samuel was in very real danger, as the chances that king Saul would hear about his trip to Hebron were close to 100% and he would be very suspect. Such danger could not be compared with that of searching for chametz in a wall and the Gentile neighbour jumping to the wrong conclusion. Joseph's brothers had never been suspected of planning to actually harm him physically. Plymo might also not have considered Joseph's danger at the hands of his brothers as real enough for him not to rely on Rabbi Eleazar's dictum that the performance of the מצוה would act as his shield.

In view of the above you may well ask how it was that Joseph wound up being sold as a slave, etc.? The answer is that when Rabbi Eleazar said that שלוחי מצוה אינן ניזקין, people on a מצוה mission would not come to harm, he meant permanent harm. Joseph wound up as the ruler of Egypt as a result of having been sent to his brothers. The fact that he experienced degradation on the way was merely a preparation for his eventual elevation.

There is another aspect to all this. When Jacob despatched Joseph he was very careful to refer to the location where the brothers were supposed to be tending the sheep. He asked: "are not your brothers tending the flocks at Shechem?" He had therefore made it plain that Joseph was supposed to go to Shechem. When Joseph went to Shechem and failed to find the brothers his mission was completed. If he decided nonetheless to go to Dothan to locate them there he was no longer his father's messenger. This is why he was no longer protected by performing a commandment of his father. Jacob was convinced that no harm would befall Joseph at Shechem. Joseph thought that his father had mentioned Shechem only as a likely place where he would find his brothers but that his mission was not restricted to Shechem.

ויבא שכמה, He arrived at Shechem. The place to which his father had sent him; however, he did not find his brothers. He searched for them, something the Torah did not need to spell out as otherwise the first words in the next verse, i.e. "A man found him," would not make sense. By now Joseph was lost.

ויבא שכמה, “he came to Shechem.” a place destined for a variety of unhappy events (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2). In Shechem Dinah had been raped; In Shechem they sold Joseph. In Shechem the kingdom of David was divided and the ten tribes elected Jerobam as their king. (Kings I 12,1). After Jerobam had been elected king he built up that city (Kings I 12,25).

ויאמר...ואת שלום הצאן, in Bereshit Rabbah 84,13 the instruction by Yaakov to Joseph that he was to enquire not only about their personal well being, but also about the well being of their property, their flocks, teaches us that one must always display concern not only for the health, etc., of people one meets but also about their economic well being.

מעמק חברון, since when is Chevron in a valley? We always associate it with being located on a mountain! The Torah alludes to a profound understanding between G’d and Avraham who had been interred in Chevron. The Torah now alludes to the prediction by G’d to Avraham, that his descendants would for a long time be strangers in a land not theirs (Genesis 15,13)

AND HE SENT HIM OUT OF THE VALLEY OF HEBRON. Scripture mentions the place from which Joseph was sent, in order to indicate that there was a great distance between father and son, and that this was the reason why the brothers did him evil: they were distant far from their father. It also serves to relate that Joseph, out of respect for his father, strengthened himself to go after them to a distant place, and he did not say, “How shall I go when they hate me?”. Our Rabbis yet have a Midrash concerning this matter, in which they say, “It was to fulfill the profound thought of the ‘seemly companion’ (Abraham. The Midrash thus explains the word Chevron (Hebron) as if it consisted of the two words: chever na’eh (seemly companion). Thus it refers to Abraham who walked before G-d (above 17:1). The Midrash is in Bereshith Rabbah 84:13.) who was buried in Hebron.” (Reference is to the covenant — which G-d made with Abraham — that his seed will be a stranger in a land that is not their own (above, 15:13). The idea expressed is that Jacob’s act of sending Joseph to his brethren was thus the beginning of a cycle of events which would fulfill the covenant made with Abraham.)

ויבא שכמה, when he came to Shechem he did not find them there.

מעמק חברון FROM THE VALE OF HEBRON — But was not Hebron situated on a hill, as it is said (Numbers 13:22) “And they went up into the South and they came unto Hebron” why then does it state that Jacob sent him from the עמק, (the vale, the deep part) of Hebron? But the meaning is that Jacob sent him in consequence of the necessity of bringing into operation the profound (עמוקה) thought of the righteous man who was buried in Hebron (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 22) — in order that there might be fulfilled that which was spoken to Abraham when the Covenant was made ‘between the parts” (cf. 15:13), “thy seed shall be a stranger etc.”

ויבא שכמה AND HE CAME TO SHECHEM — A spot foredestined to be the scene of misfortunes: there the sons of Jacob sinned (by selling Joseph), there Dinah was maltreated, there the kingdom of the House of David was divided, as it said (1 Kings 12:1) “And Rehoboam went to Shechem etc.” (Sanhedrin 102a).

לך נא ראה, “please go and have a first hand look, etc.” Yaakov meant that Joseph should take care of any matters which in his opinion needed to be improved in the managing of the herds.

But, is not Chevron on a mountain... Re’m writes: It seems that this verse was not [Chazal’s] proof that Chevron was on a mountain. Although it is written, “Went up,” this could be because Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands, as Rashi explains on, “Hurry, go up to my father” (45:9). Rather, Re’m explains, the proof is that Chevron was designated as a burial place. People designate only rocky areas for burial, as it says in Kesubos 112a, and rocky areas are on mountains. An alternate explanation: It is written, “They went up and scouted the land...” (Bamidbar 13:21), and then is written (v. 22), “They went up into the southern part, and came to Chevron.” Why is it written “they went up” twice? Scripture should simply have written, “They went up into the southern part, and scouted the land... and came to Chevron.” Perforce, “they went up” is repeated because it refers to Chevron, which is on a mountain. So it seems to me.

A place with a predisposition to misfortunes... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise it should simply say, “And he came there,” since it is already written, “Pasturing in Shechem.” Perforce, [the name is repeated to imply,] “the notorious Shechem”. [Alternatively, Rashi knows this because] it should simply say, “He sent him from the depths of Chevron, and a man found him...” Perforce, [Shechem is mentioned to imply, “the notorious Shechem”]. (Maharshal)

He said to him: Go now, see the status of your brothers and the status of the flock and bring back word. He sent him from the Valley of Hebron. Although Hebron itself is situated on mountainous terrain, it is possible that Jacob’s family dwelled in the valley below. Alternatively, the family lived in Hebron itself, but Jacob accompanied his son until they reached the valley, at which point Jacob sent Joseph on his own. 4 And he, Joseph, came to Shekhem.

וישלחהו מעמק חברון, “he sent him on his way after having accompanied him to the valley of Chevron.” Although, according to all our records, Chevron is situated on a mountain, as we know also from the route taken by the spies (Deuteronomy 1,24), his father accompanied him all the way down to the valley. Only after reaching the lowlands did Yaakov send Joseph alone on his fateful journey. The Torah makes a point of letting us know from where Joseph was sent on this mission (presumably on foot), so that we realize how far he had to travel, i.e. how much distance the brothers had put between themselves and their father. They had done so precisely to discourage their father from sending Joseph, assuming also that if their father would want to send him, he might demur, citing both the distance and the fact that the brothers hated him.

“He sent him from the valley of Hebron” [37:14]. If you want to ask, what was Jacob thinking to send Joseph to his brothers, who hated him very much? The explanation is that the Holy One had commanded this, so that through this, Israel would come to the exile of Egypt. So had the Holy One said to Abraham who was buried in Hebron. Your children will be in Egypt for four hundred years. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:14.)

It is commonly supposed that "peace" is the restoration of harmony between parties that have been at odds with one another. People who conceive of "peace" as being merely that, deprive the concept of much of its value. If "peace" does nothing more than restore a balance where there had previously been an imbalance, it can hardly be considered a blessing. Shame is not a virtue, since it presupposes that an unworthy act had been committed which the perpetrator is now ashamed of. Actually, peace is more like the silver thread that joins two people or two entities combining them into a unified whole. Why is one of the names of G'd shalom, peace? Because He ties together worlds, keeps them united and preserves their appearance and format. (Midrash Chazit chapter 1) When we read in Samuel II 11,7, "David enquired after the "peace" of Yoav, the "peace" of the people, and the "peace" of the "war," there is certainly no reference intended to the cessation of the war. This war was still very much in progress. David merely asked Uriah whether these people or affairs were all well and proceeding according to plan. The word "peace" in that context describes that there was a common bond between the people or the animals described. A city of people who do not quarrel with one another, who tolerate each other's idiosyncrasies, cannot be said to be at peace with each other as long as they do not share a common purpose or goal. Furthermore, when there is no bond joining people, there is a degree of separateness which may eventually lead to disintegration, decay etc. Isaiah 45,7, has this in mind when he contrasts "fashions light, or creates darkness, makes peace or creates evil, I the Lord do all these." The relationship of ra, evil, to shalom, peace, is like the relationship between darkness and light. Peace, i.e harmony, is the fruitful interaction of the various energies of different bodies, elements. It was Aaron's special talent to have understood that it is the task of a leader to weave that thread, the fabric that binds people to one another, and thus help them to establish harmony by desiring for them what one desires for oneself. Moses, on the other hand, was concerned primarily with the intellectual approach. He believed that without the benefit of Torah, whatever man does is of insufficient value to prolong our days on this earth. Without Torah, no degree of harmony can be achieved that would be capable of overcoming the dichotomy due to the fact that this physical universe has been made up of four distinctly different elements. The Talmud Shabbat 89, illustrates this line of thinking when it describes Moses' arrival on Mount Sinai before he had received the Torah. Moses is described as finding G'd "tying crowns to the letters." G'd asks him: "Moses, is there no "peace" in your city?" (are you people not in the habit of extending greetings of "peace be with you" where you come from?) Moses replies: "how can a slave contribute to the "peace"' of his Master?" G'd replies: "at any rate you should have assisted Me." Immediately, Moses said "now let the strength of the Lord become great as You have said." The lesson contained in that Midrash is, that even without the benefit of Torah, man's effort to weave the thread of togetherness, i.e. civilisation, is sufficient to improve his lot down here on earth. This is shalom; peace. When Hillel advised people to emulate the virtue of Aaron, namely to strive for peace, he was quite correct, inasmuch as this is a most positive character trait. Similarly, when Hillel said "do not separate yourself from the community," he was merely describing the other side of the coin. Tzibbur, community, after all, is what has been united by shalom, peace. The holiness of G'd depends on the community. Venikdashti betoch beney Yisrael, I will be sanctified within the community of Israel. When the community sins, one must abandon it. (Jeremiah 9,1) When only an individual sins, the community must see to it that the individual repents, or they must place him outside the tzibbur, into cherem quarantine. Since peace therefore is of vital importance to the existence of the community, it is clear that precisely at the time the tabernacle was put into service, G'd would pronounce the blessing of peace, as we have noted in our opening Midrash.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

It is taught: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that in accordance with the measure that a person metes out for others it is meted out for him? (The retribution is commensurate with the action.) It is as it is stated: “In measure [besasse’a] (This is expounded as bise’a se’a, measure for measure.) in sending it away, You contend with it” (Isaiah 27:8). I have derived only a matter that is a se’a. From where is it derived regarding one who measures a tarkav, half a tarkav, a kav, half a kav, a rova, half a rova, toman, and ukhela; (These are all smaller measures.) from where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “For all boots [seon] stomp [so’en] noisily” (Isaiah 9:4) – it includes here many se’a. I have derived only a matter that comes by measure, from where is it derived that even perutot (A peruta is the smallest coin.) accumulate to a large account? The verse states: “One to one to find the account” (Ecclesiastes 7:27). The way of the world is that if a person stumbles by performing a transgression for which one incurs liability for death at the hand of Heaven, his ox dies, his hen is lost, his jug is lost, his finger is injured, and the account is settled. One event follows another and the account is settled. To what extent is the settling of the account? It is until the last one. Likewise you find regarding the sota that in accordance with the measure that she meted out it is meted out for her. She stood before him so she would be beautiful in his eyes; therefore, the priest has her stand before all to display her shame, as it is stated: “The priest shall have the woman stand before the Lord” (Numbers 5:18) – this is the Nikanor Gate. She wrapped beautiful scarves on her head; therefore the priest removes the covering from upon her head and places it under the soles of her feet. She adorned her face for him; therefore, her face turns sallow. She applied makeup to her eyes for him; therefore, her eyes bulge. She plaited her hair for him; therefore, the priest dishevels her hair. She signaled to him with her fingers; therefore, her fingernails fall off. She wore a fine belt for him; therefore, the priest brings a rope crafted from trees and ties it above her breasts. She extended her thigh to him; therefore, her thigh falls. She received him on her belly; therefore, her belly distends. She fed him delicacies of the world; therefore, her offering is animal feed. She gave him fine wine to drink in fine goblets; therefore the priest gives her bitter water to drink in an earthenware vessel. She acted clandestinely [baseter]; therefore, He who dwells in the shelter [beseter] of the Most High directs His glance at her, as it is stated: “The eye of the adulterer awaits the night, saying: No eye will behold me; and he masks [veseter panav] his face” (Job 24:15). Another matter: She acted clandestinely and the Omnipresent publicized her in the open, as it is stated: “Hatred will be concealed by darkness; his wickedness will be revealed in public.” (Proverbs 26:26). The Sages taught: The members of the generation of the Flood became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “Their houses are peaceful without fear.… his bull breeds.… they send out their youngsters like a flock.… They sing to the drum and harp [and rejoice at the sound of the pipe.] They will end their days in prosperity…” (Job 21:9–13). That caused them: “They say to God: Turn away from us.… What is the Almighty, that we should serve Him…” (Job 21:14–15). The members of the generation of the Flood said: Since the only exertion he does for us is these two drops of water, we do not need it. We have springs and rivers from which we take our supply in the summer and in the rainy season, as it is stated: “And a mist would rise from the earth [and water the entire surface of the ground]” (Genesis 2:6). The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you become haughty before Me? With it, I will exact retribution against you,’ as it is stated: “On that day, [all the wellsprings of the great depths] were breached [and the windows of the heavens were opened]…” (Genesis 7:11); “He obliterated all existence…” (Genesis 7:23). Rabbi Yosei ben Dormaskit says: They became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the eyeball, which is similar to water, as it is stated: “And the sons of the prominent saw the daughters of men, that they were fair” (Genesis 6:2). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution from them only with the water wheel, which is similar to an eyeball [ha’ayin], as it is stated: “On that day [all the wellsprings [ma’ayanot] of the great depths] were breached” (Genesis 7:11). The people of the tower became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them, as it is stated: “The entire earth was of [one] language.… When they migrated from the east…[and settled [vayeshvu] there]” (Genesis 11:1–2). Yeshiva is nothing other than eating and drinking, as it is stated: “The people sat [vayeshev] to eat and drink” (Exodus 32:6). That caused them: “They said: Come let us build us [a city]” (Genesis 11:4). With it, (By means of the language that had been part of the original goodness. ) He exacted retribution against them, as it is stated: “The Lord dispersed them from there…That is why one called it Babylonia, [because there the Lord confounded [balal] the world’s language]” (Genesis 11:8–9). The people of Sodom became haughty before the Omnipresent due only to the goodness that He bestowed upon them. What is stated in their regard? “Earth, from which bread emerges.… the source of sapphires.… a path unknown by birds of prey.… wild beasts have not trodden it…” (Job 28:5–8). (The reference is to the city of Sodom, which was later overturned, as it is stated thereafter: “He extends his hand to the flinty rock; He overturns mountains from the root” (Job 28:9).) Sodom said: Since food emerges from our land, silver and gold emerge from our land, jewels and gems emerge from our land, we do not need people coming to us, as they come only to cause us loss. Let us stand and cause passersby to be forgotten from our midst. The Omnipresent said to them: With the goodness that I bestowed upon you, you seek to cause passersby to be forgotten from your midst? “He drives a shaft away from habitation, [which is forgotten by foot traffic, removed from humanity]” (Job 28:4). “A calamity that brings contempt to complacent composure.… The tents are tranquil…” (Job 12:5–6). It caused them: “As the hand of God engenders” (Job 12:6). Likewise it says: “As I live, the utterance of the Lord God, Sodom, your sister, she and her daughters surely did not do as you have done, you and your daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom…” (Ezekiel 16:48–49). Why [was Sodom punished] to that extent? “But she did not support the hand of the poor and indigent…” (Ezekiel 16:49). Egypt became haughty before the Omnipresent only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh commanded all his people [saying:] every son who is born, [into the Nile you shall cast him]” (Exodus 1:22). The Omnipresent, too, exacted retribution against them only with water, as it is stated: “Pharaoh’s chariots [and his army, He cast in the sea]” (Exodus 15:4). Sisera became haughty before the Omnipresent only due to the legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “Kings came, they waged war, then [the kings of Canaan] waged war…[they took no monetary gain]” (Judges 5:19). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution against them with legions that do not receive wages, as it is stated: “From the heavens, they made war; [the stars from their courses made war with Sisera]” (Judges 5:20). They did not move from there and did not show him respect, because he is an underling. (He was a general in the army of the king.) Samson rebelled with his eyes, as it is stated: “Samson said to his father: Take her for me, as she is fitting in my eyes” (Judges 14:3). He too was stricken in his eyes, as it is stated: “The Philistines seized him and gouged out his eyes” (Judges 16:21). One verse says: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1), and one verse says: “Behold your father-in-law is ascending to Timna” (Genesis 38:13). Rav said: There are two Timnas, one of Judah and one of Samson. Rabbi Aivu bar Nagari said: It is like this Beit Maon that one descends to it from Pelugta and ascends to it from Tiberias. Rabbi Simon says: There was one Timna. Why is ascent and descent written in its regard? It is, rather, that the one of Judah, that was for the sake of Heaven; (This is a reference to the behavior of Tamar in the story in Genesis, chapter 38. See Yalkut Shimoni, Vayeshev 144.) therefore, ascent is written in its regard. The one of Samson, that was not for the sake of Heaven; therefore, descent is written in its regard. It is written: “They came to the vineyards of Timna” (Judges 14:5) – Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: It teaches that his father and his mother would show him the vineyards of Timna sown with diverse kinds and say to him: ‘Just as their vineyards are sown with diverse kinds, so their daughters are sown with diverse kinds.’ (The Philistines did not observe the laws of family purity.) “His father and his mother did not know that it was from the Lord” (Judges 14:4) – Rabbi Elazar said: In seven places, (See Jerusalem Talmud, Shabbat 1:4, and the commentators there who give different explanations for the phrase "seven places.") it is written: “Do not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3), to prohibit the seven nations, (This is a reference to the seven nations mentioned in Deuteronomy 7:1.) and here, this is what it says? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “If it is to scoffers, He will scoff, but to the humble He gives favor” (Proverbs 3:34). (When one seeks to sin, God enables the sinner to do as he wishes.) It is taught: Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza; therefore, he was stricken in Gaza. The beginning of his corruption was in Gaza, as it is written: “Samson went to Gaza, and he saw a harlot there, and he consorted with her” (Judges 16:1). Therefore, he was stricken in Gaza, as it is written: “They took him down to Gaza and bound him with bronze shackles; he became a grinder in the prison” (Judges 16:21). They raised an objection: But is it not written: “Samson descended to Timna” (Judges 14:1)? Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: The one in Timna was through marriage, but the beginning of his corruption was in Gaza. (Sota 9b.) “It was after that that he fell in love with a woman in Sorek Stream, [and her name was Delilah]” (Judges 16:4). What is the Sorek Stream? He became like a tree that does not bear fruit. (Such a tree is known as an etz serak.) So, since he sinned three times he became a habitual sinner. “And her name was Delilah” – Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: Had her name not been called Delilah, it would have been appropriate that she be called that; she depleted [dildela] his strength, she depleted his actions, she depleted his heart. It is written: “Delilah saw that he had told her his whole heart…” (Judges 16:18). How did she know? Rabbi Ḥanan said: Truth is apparent. Naḥmani said: She knew regarding that righteous one that he would not express the Name of Heaven for naught. When he said: “I am a nazirite of God” (Judges 16:17), she said: Now it is certain that he has spoken the truth. She depleted his strength, as it is written: “His strength left him.” (Judges 16:19). “He became a grinder [toḥen] in the prison” (Judges 16:21) – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Teḥina is nothing other than an expression of transgression. Likewise it says: “Let my wife grind [titḥan] for another…” (Job 31:10). It teaches that each and every one would bring his wife to the prison so she would be impregnated by him. That is what people say: Before one who drinks wine, wine; before a cultivator of the ground, scrapings of wild onions. (Samson was accustomed to consorting with women, so they brought him women.) Rabbi Yitzḥak of the school of Rabbi Ami said: Because Samson desired an impure matter, his life depended on an impure matter, as it is stated: “God split the hollow that was in the jawbone, (It was the jawbone of a donkey.) and [water] emerged [from it; he drank, and his spirit returned, and he was revived]” (Judges 15:19). “Samson called to the Lord and said: Lord God, please remember me [and please strengthen me]” (Judges 16:28) – what remembrance does he have with the Holy One blessed be He, while he desires licentiousness? Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav: Samson said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, remember for me the twenty years during which I judged Israel and I did not say to one of them: Move this staff from place to place.’ “God, that I will take vengeance from the Philistines for one of my two eyes” (Judges 16:28) – Rav Aḥa said: He said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, give me reward for one of my eyes in this world, and let reward for one of my eyes be prepared for me for the future.’ Avshalom rebelled with his hair, as he was haughty in its regard, as it is stated: “There was no man in all of Israel so…beautiful as Avshalom.… When he would cut the hair of his head, it was at the end of every year that he would cut his hair…[he would weigh the hair of his head]” (II Samuel 14:25–26). That is why he was suspended by his hair, as it is stated: “His head was caught in the terebinth, and he was suspended between the heavens [and the earth]” (II Samuel 18:9). It is taught: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Avshalom was an eternal nazirite. Once every twelve months, he would cut his hair, as it is stated: “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow.… for your servant took a vow…” (II Samuel 15:7–8). He would shave once every twelve months, as it is stated: “It was at the end yamim leyamim that he would cut his hair” (II Samuel 14:26). One derives “yamim,” “yamim” from houses of a walled city. As it is written: “Its redemption shall be a year [yamim]” (Leviticus 25:29). Just as there it is twelve months, so too here it is twelve months. Rabbi Nehorai says: He would cut his hair once every thirty days. One derives it from the priests, in whose regard it is stated: “They shall not shave their heads, nor shall they allow their hair to grow wild [ufera]” (Ezekiel 44:20), and more than thirty days is pera. Regarding priests, what is the reason that they are not permitted to grow pera? It is due to honor. Here too there is honor. Rabbi Yosei says: From Sabbath eve to Sabbath eve, as we find that the residents of Tiberias and the residents of Tzippori cut their hair from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. (See Nazir 4b–5a.) “He would weigh the hair of his head; it was two hundred shekels…” (II Samuel 14:26) – Avshalom. Rabbi Ḥanina said: He was like a large carob tree. Was it like a javelin? (Did his hair descend straight down?) Rabbi Beivai said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: It was styled curls upon curls. Rabbi Ḥanina said: When I ascended to here, (From Babylonia to the Land of Israel.) I took my belt, my son’s belt, and the belt of the donkey driver and wrapped it around a Land of Israel carob tree, and it did not reach. I cut one carob and a handful of honey oozed out. Abba Shaul says: I was a gravedigger. Once a burial cave opened beneath me, and I was standing in the eye socket of a corpse until my nose. When I went back, they said to me: It was the eye of Avshalom. Perhaps you will say that Abba Shaul was a midget. That is not the case, but rather, Abba Shaul was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Tarfon reached his shoulders. Rabbi Tarfon was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Akiva reached his shoulders. Rabbi Akiva was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi Meir reached his shoulders. Rabbi Meir was the tallest in his generation, and Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] reached his shoulders. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was the tallest in his generation, and Rav reached his shoulders. Rav was the tallest in his generation, and Rav Yehuda reached his shoulders. Rav Yehuda was the tallest in his generation, and Ada the attendant reached his shoulders. Pashtivena of Pumbedita reached the midsection of Ada the attendant. Everyone reached the midsection of Pashtivena of Pumbedita. It is written: “There was no man in all of Israel so very remarkably beautiful as Avshalom” (II Samuel 14:25). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: From the sole of his foot to the top of his head there was no blemish in him” (II Samuel 14:25). Similarly, “he had a son, and his name was Saul, a distinguished and fine person” (I Samuel 9:2). Is it, perhaps, in all aspects? The verse states: “From his shoulders upward he was taller than all the people” (I Samuel 9:2). It was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: When Avshalom was suspended from the terebinth, he took a sword and sought to cut himself loose. At that moment, the netherworld was breached beneath him. Because he consorted with his father’s ten concubines, as it is stated: “The king left ten [concubine] women [to keep the house]” (II Samuel 15:16), and it says: “Avshalom consorted with his father's concubines” (II Samuel 16:22), that is why ten spears were stuck in him, as it is stated: “Ten lads, [bearers of Yoav’s armor], circled around [and smote Avshalom and put him to death]” (II Samuel 18:15). It is written: “Avshalom had acquired and raised in his lifetime” (II Samuel 18:18) – what did he acquire? Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: He acquired a bad acquisition for himself. “The monument that is in the valley [be’emek] of the king [hamelekh]” (II Samuel 18:18) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of the King [malko] of the world, as it is stated: “So said the Lord: Behold, I will arouse harm against you from your house, and I will take your wives [before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun]” (II Samuel 12:11). Similarly, “he sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron” (Genesis 37:14) – Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: In the profound [amuka] counsel of that righteous man who is buried in Hebron: “Know, that you’re your seed will be a stranger [in a land that is not theirs, and they shall be enslaved to them and they shall oppress them, four hundred years]” (Genesis 15:13). “As he said: I do not have a son” (II Samuel 18:18), but another verse says: “To Avshalom were born three sons and one daughter, and her name was Tamar” (II Samuel 14:27). Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: It is that he did not have a son fit for kingship. Because Avshalom committed three thefts: His father’s heart, the court’s heart, and the heart of the men of Israel; therefore, three staves were fixed in his heart. “[He took three staves in his hand], and he thrust them into the heart of Avshalom, while he was still alive in the heart of the terebinth” (II Samuel 18:14). His father’s heart, from where is it derived? “It was at the end of forty years, and Avshalom said to the king…” (II Samuel 15:7). All the days that David reigned totaled only forty years, and this is what it says here? It is, rather, from the time that Israel requested a king. “For your servant took a vow [while I lived in Geshur in Aram, saying]” (II Samuel 15:8) – he [David] said to him: What are you requesting now? He said to him: Write for me one note that two men will accompany me. He said to him: Tell me whom you want. He said to him: Write it for me without specification, and I will take whom I want. He wrote it for him without specification. He went and gathered several pairs of men until he had gathered two hundred men. That is what is written: “With Avshalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem, who were invited and went innocently; they did not know anything” (II Samuel 15:11). They “were invited” by David, “and went innocently” of Avshalom; “they did not know anything” of Aḥitofel’s counsel. Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: They were all heads of the Sanhedrin. When they saw that matters were going to the contrary, they said: Master of the universe, please let us fall into the hand of David and let David not fall into our hands, as if we fall into the hand of David, he will have mercy upon us, but if David falls into our hands, we (This refers to Avshalom and his supporters.) will not have mercy upon him, as it is stated: “He redeemed me unharmed…[for there were many with me]” (Psalms 55:19). That is, he stole his father’s heart. The court’s heart: “Avshalom would say: If only I were appointed judge in the of Israel” (II Samuel 15:6). Likewise Sennacherib became haughty before the Omnipresent only by means of an emissary [malakh], as it is stated: “By means of your servants you blasphemed the Lord…and I arrived at its highest edge…” (Isaiah 37:24). The Holy One blessed be He, too, exacted retribution from him only by means of an angel [malakh], as it is stated: “An angel of the Lord emerged and smote in the Assyrian camp [one hundred eighty-five thousand]” (II Kings 19:35). All of them [the people killed] were kings who tied crowns on their heads. Nebuchadnezzar said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst. He crafted for himself a small cloud and resided in it, as it is stated: “I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be comparable to the Most High” (Isaiah 14:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to him: “You said in your heart: To the heavens, I will ascend…” (Isaiah 14:13); I will cause you to descend to the netherworld. That is what is written: “However, you will be lowered to the netherworld” (Isaiah 14:15). You said: All those who have entered the world are not worthy [for me] to dwell in their midst; you are not worthy to dwell in their midst, “You will be driven from men, and your dwelling will be with the beasts of the field” (Daniel 4:29). “At that moment, the matter was determined [for Nebuchadnezzar, and he was driven away from men, and would eat grass like oxen]” (Daniel 4:30). “At the end of twelve months [he was walking upon the royal palace of Babylon. The king spoke, saying: Is this not this great Babylon, which I built as a royal residence, with the might of my power and for the glory of my majesty?” (Daniel 4:26–27). (For this haughtiness he was punished.)

“His brothers went to herd their father’s flock in Shekhem” (Genesis 37:12). “His brothers went to herd [lirot et]” – there are dots over the word et, indicating that they went only to herd themselves. (They went to eat and drink for their own pleasure, not primarily to herd the flocks.) “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem? Go, and I will send you to them. He said to him: Here I am” (Genesis 37:13). “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of Rabbi Berekhya: He treated him with deference in accordance with the reverence due a father from the son. (Although Joseph’s relations with his brothers were strained, he agreed to go in order to honor his father.) “He said to him: Here I am” – Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Jacob our patriarch would remember these words, and his innards would be torn to shreds: You knew that your brothers hated you, and you would say to me: Here I am. “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock and bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shekhem” (Genesis 37:14). “He said to him: Go now, observe the well-being of your brothers and the well-being of the flock” – “the well-being of your brothers,” fine; but what is “the well-being of the flock”? This is [the source of] the saying: A person must inquire after the well-being of an item from which he derives benefit. “And bring me back word. He sent him from the valley of Hebron” – but is Hebron not situated in the mountain, yet it is written: “He sent him from the valley of [me’emek] Hebron”? Rav Aḥa said: He went to fulfill that profound [haamuka] counsel that the Holy One blessed be He arranged between Himself and His noble friend who is buried in Hebron: “They will be enslaved to them, and they will oppress them” (Genesis 15:13).

“Israel said to Joseph: Behold, I am dying, and God will be with you, and He will restore you to the land of your fathers” (Genesis 48:21). “Israel said to Joseph: Behold, I [anokhi] am dying, and God will be with you, and He will restore…” – the son of Rabbi Yosei’s brother [said]: The elder gave them three signs: One who comes [to redeem] with the term anokhi, who will appoint elders from among you, and will say to you pakod, he is the redeemer. (These were Jacob’s signs as to the identity of the future redeemer of the Israelites. Moses fulfilled all three signs; see, e.g., Exodus 3:11, 3:16, 4:29. ) Rabbi Ḥunya removes anokhi, and inserts the ineffable Name in its place. (See Exodus 3:13–14. ) “And I have given to you one portion [shekhem] beyond your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Emorite with my sword and with my bow” (Genesis 48:22). “And I have given to you” a son who was vigilant [shehishkim], and you did not act in accordance with their actions; therefore, the portion will be in your territory. (The midrash interprets the additional portion promised here to Joseph to be the city of Shekhem. This was granted to Joseph, because he did not act as his brothers did in Shekhem, where they sold Joseph into slavery (see Genesis 37:14; Sanhedrin 102a). Alternatively, he did not act as did Shekhem, who raped Dina (Genesis 34:2). Joseph refrained from acting on his desires even when approached by the wife of Potifar (Matnot Kehuna). ) Rabbi Pinḥas said: In Shekhem there was breach in the area of licentiousness, and you repaired it; therefore, it will be in your portion. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda said: “I have given to you [one] shekhem” – this is the birthright and the garment of Adam the first man. “Which I took from the hand of the Emorite” – this is Esau. Was Esau, in fact, an Emorite? It is, rather, that he performed the actions of the Emorite. “With my sword and with my bow” – with mitzvot and good deeds. Rabbi Neḥemya said: “I have given to you one shekhem” – this is literally [the city of] Shekhem. “Which I took from the hand of the Emorite” – this is Ḥamor father of Shekhem. Was he, in fact, an Emorite? It is that the Hivite are included in the Emorite. (The Emorites were a larger group surrounding the Hivites, and therefore the Hivites were sometimes called Emorites (see Etz Yosef). ) “With my sword and with my bow” – Jacob did not want his sons to perform that act. (But when his sons performed that act, he said: What, will I allow my sons to fall at the hand of the nations of the world? What did he do? He took his sword and his bow, stood at the entrance of Shekhem, and said: If the nations of the world come to confront my sons, I will battle against them. See Bereshit Rabba 80:10.) But when…

“For the Lord God will not do anything, [unless He has revealed His secret to His servants the prophets]” (Amos 3:7) – Jacob paired two with two, and Moses paired two with two. (They paired two of the tribes against two of the kingdoms that will conquer Israel.) Judah opposite the kingdom of Babylon – this one was likened to a lion and that one was likened to a lion. This one was likened to a lion: “Judah is a lion cub” (Genesis 49:9); and that one was likened to a lion: “The first was like a lion” (Daniel 7:4). Into the hands of whom would the kingdom of Babylon fall? Into the hands of Daniel, who descended from Judah. Benjamin opposite the kingdom of Media – this one was likened to a wolf, and that one was likened to a wolf. This one was likened to a wolf: “Benjamin is a wolf that mauls” (Genesis 49:27); and that one was likened to a wolf: “Behold another, a second beast, resembling a bear [ledov]” (Daniel 7:5) – Rabbi Ḥanina said: Ledov is written, but it was called dev. (The word dov, bear, is sometimes written with a vav. In this instance it is written without a vav, such that it can be read dev, which is Aramaic for ze’ev, wolf. Thus, the midrash is saying that Media is compared to a wolf. ) This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Therefore, a lion from the forest smote them” (Jeremiah 5:6) – this is Babylon; “a wolf of the deserts will plunder them” (Jeremiah 5:6) – this is Media. Into the hands of whom did the kingdom of Media fall? Into the hands of Mordekhai, who descended from Benjamin. Levi opposite the kingdom of Greece – this one is the third tribe, and that one is the third kingdom. (The third of the four kingdoms in the vision of Daniel (Daniel, ch. 7). ) This one has three letters, and that one has three letters. (Levi and Greece [Yavan] are each spelled with three letters in Hebrew. ) These sound horns, (The priests, from the tribe of Levi, would sound the shofar when sacrificing offerings.) and those sound trumpets. (The Greeks would sound trumpets when going out to war.) These wear hats, (The reference is to the headdresses that were part of the priestly vestments.) and those wear helmets. These wear trousers, and those wear knee breeches. Those (The Greeks) are many in number, and these are few in number. The many came and fell into the hand of the few. By what merit? It was due to the blessing of Moses, who said: “Crush the loins of those who rise against him” (Deuteronomy 33:11). Into whose hands did the kingdom of Greece fall? Into the hands of the Hasmoneans, who were from Levi. Joseph opposite the kingdom of Edom – this one has horns, and that one has horns. This one has horns – “the firstborn bull is his majesty” (Deuteronomy 33:17); and that one has horns – “and concerning the ten horns that were on its head” (Daniel 7:20). This one forsook licentiousness, and that one cleaves to licentiousness. This one was scrupulous regarding his father’s honor, and that one demeaned his father’s honor. (Joseph heeded his father and went to check on his brothers even though he knew they hated him (Genesis 37:13–14). The nation of Edom descends from Esau, who said: “The days of mourning for my father will approach, and I will kill my brother Jacob” (Genesis 27:41). Thus, Esau was looking forward to his father dying so that he could kill Jacob. ) Of this one it is stated: “I fear God” (Genesis 42:18); of that one it is stated: “And he did not fear God” (Deuteronomy 25:18). (This is stated in reference to Amalek, who descended from Esau.) Into whose hands will the kingdom [of Edom] fall? Into the hands of the one anointed for war, who comes from Joseph. (The messiah, son of Joseph. ) Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: There is a tradition that Esau will fall only into the hands of Rachel’s descendants. That is what is written: “[Therefore, hear the schemes of the Lord that He has devised against Edom…] will the young of the flock not drag them?” (Jeremiah 49:20). Why does he call them the young of the flock? Because they are the youngest of the tribes.

"Abshalom exalted himself with his hair," etc. Our Rabbis were taught Abshalom rebelled [against his father] through his hair, as it is said (II. Sam. 14, 25) And like Abshalom there was no man as handsome in all Israel, so that he was greatly praised. From the sole of his foot up to the crown of his head, there was no blemish on him. And when he shaved off [the hair of his head], and it was at the end of every year that he shaved it off because it was too heavy on him, he weiged the hair of his head at two hundred shekels by the king's weight. We are taught that this means, the weight was as one of those used among the Tiberians and Ziporians. Therefore was he hung by his hair, as it is said (Ib. 15, 9) And Abshalom happened to come before the servants of David. And Abshalom was riding upon a mule, and the mule came under the thick boughs of a big oak, and his head caught hold of the oak. It was taught in the school of R. Ishmael that he took his scissors and wanted to cut off his hair, but he at that moment saw Gehenna open under him [which frightened him] (Ib. 19, 1) And the king was much moved and he went up to the upper chamber of the gate and wept; and thus he said as he went, 'Oh, my son Abshalom, my son, my son Abshalom! I had died for thee. Oh, Abshalom, my son, my son!' But the king covered his face and the king cried with a loud voice. Oh, my son Abshalom, Oh! Abshalom, my son, my son!' These eight times, in which is mentioned My son for what purpose? Seven times it was for the purpose of bringing him forth from seven fires of Gehenna, the eighth one, was, according to some, for the purpose of connecting the head of Abshalom [which was cut off] to the body, and according to others it was for the purpose of bringing him into the future world. (Ib. 18, 18) Now Abshalom in his life-time had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king's dale, for he said: 'I have no son to keep my name in remembrance; and he called the pillar after his own name; and it was called Abshalom's Monument, even until this day! What is the meaning of Abshalom has taken. Said Resh Lakish: "He purchased a bad bargain for himself." The pillar, which is in the king's vale. Said R. Chanina b. Papa: This [the word Aimek (vale)] means that if was caused by the deep council of the Universal King (Fol. 11) who said (Ib. 12, 11) I will raise up again this evil out of thy own house." Similarly is the following explained: (Gen. 37, 14) So he sent him out of the vale (aimek) of Hebron. Said R. Chanina b. Papa: "This was caused by the deep counsel of the Universal King, who said (Ib. 15, 13) Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land which is not theirs." (II Sam. 18, 18) For he said: 'I have no son.' Did he indeed not have a son? Behold, the passage says (Ib. 14, 27) And there were born unto Abshalom three sons and one daughter, whose name was Thamor. Said R. Isaac b. Abdimi: "The former passage means that he did not have a son fit to the royalty." R. Chisda said: "We have a tradition that whoever sets on fire his neighbor's crop, will not leave a son to inherit him, and Abshalom caused to set on fire the crop of Jo'ab, as it is written (Ib., ib., 30) He thereupon said unto his servants, 'See, Jo'ab's field is alongside of mine, and he hath barley there; go and set it on fire."

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 37:14)? PLEASE GO AND SEE [ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK]. Would the flock know what WELFARE was when he told him < to see about > THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK? (“What is your welfare” corresponds to the English greeting “How do you do.” How could animals respond to such a greeting?) R. Ayyevu said: A person must pray for whoever is beneficial to him. (The Buber text, which reads “shatters him,” makes little sense. The emendation adopted here is slight. It has been accepted by Jastrow, in his lexicon under SKR, and suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), vol. 1, appendix, p. 74, n. 2. See Gen. R. 84:13.) Because Jacob was benefiting from his flock by consuming the milk and wearing the shorn wool, for that reason he had to ask about their welfare. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:14): YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK. (Ibid., cont,:) AND BRING BACK WORD TO ME. They said (in vs. 33): JOSEPH HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. (According to the biblical context, these words were spoken by Jacob.)

(Gen. 37:14, cont.:) SO HE SENT HIM AWAY FROM THE HEBRON VALLEY. Is there a valley in Hebron? And is not all of it highland, as stated (in Numb. 13:22): THEN THEY WENT UP INTO THE NEGEB AND CAME TO HEBRON? And so it says (in vs. 17): GO UP THERE INTO THE NEGEB, AND GO UP INTO THE HILL COUNTRY. But here it says: FROM THE HEBRON VALLEY ('MQ)! (Gen. R. 37:13; see Sot. 11a.) R. Johanan said: < The following events issue > out of a profound (rt.: 'MQ) (well) [counsel] which the Holy One has placed between him (I.e., Abraham, who was buried in Hebron.) and himself < in the covenant with Abraham between the < sacrificial > pieces (of Gen. 15:10ff.).

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

(Gen. 32:4:) THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS. (In Hebrew the same word may be translated either as “angels” or as “messengers.”) This text is related (to Ps. 91:11): FOR HE WILL CHARGE HIS ANGELS TO PROTECT YOU IN ALL YOUR WAYS. (Cf. Matthew 4:6.) When? When one is in the land of Israel, angels who are in the land of Israel protect him. (So below, 9:2.) And from whom do you learn this? From Jacob; for, when he desired to go abroad, what is written (in Gen. 28:12)? THEN HE DREAMED THAT HERE WAS A LADDER…. AND BEHOLD, THE ANGELS OF GOD WERE ASCENDING AND DESCENDING ON IT. < The verse > should not have said < this > but "descending and ascending." After one descends, he ascends. Yet < here > it says: ASCENDING AND DESCENDING! It said to him: Those angels who had been protecting him in the land of Israel had ascended while others descended to protect him while abroad. He did not stay. So, when he came from Paddan-aram, those angels who had protected him in the land of Israel descended. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 32:3 [2]): WHEN JACOB SAW THEM (i.e., the angels), HE SAID: < THIS IS THE CAMP (mahaneh) OF GOD >, AND CALLED THE NAME OF THAT PLACE MAHANAIM (i.e., two camps). "Mahaneh" (i.e., "camp" in the singular) is not written here but MAHANAIM, < a dual form which means > "two camps," the former < which had kept him when abroad > and the latter < to protect him in the land of Israel >. What did Jacob do? When he wanted to send < messengers > to Esau, he took < them > from the one < camp > and from the other, and sent < them >, as stated (in vs. 4 [3]): THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS. And do not be surprised; for behold, the youngest of his house spoke with the angel. Who was this? This was Joseph; for, when he said to him (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE < HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING >…. < Then > what is written (in vs. 15): THEN A MAN FOUND HIM…. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:14.) What did he say to him (in vs. 17)? THEN THE MAN SAID: THEY HAVE MOVED ON FROM HERE; < FOR I HEARD THEM SAYING: LET US GO TO DOTHAN >. What is the meaning of DOTHAN (DTYNH)? That he was the same angel who protects the religion (DT) of the Lord (YH). So neither be surprised about Jacob sending angels nor about Joseph. Yes, even Hagar had the angels speak with her. What is written (in Gen. 21:17)? AND AN ANGEL OF {THE LORD} [GOD] CALLED UNTO HAGAR. How many angels spoke with her? R. Levi said: < Five >, (The figure comes from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34.) but our masters have said three. (Cf. Gen. R. 45:7.) Now surely, if the slave woman talks with the angels, do not be surprised at Jacob having sent out angels. It is therefore written (in Gen. 32:4 [3]): THEN JACOB SENT ANGELS.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Joseph accepted his father's mission with alacrity as we know from his immediate response: הנני, "I am ready!" Although Joseph had known intellectually that he faced deathly danger, he did not demur by saying to his father:"my brothers hate me, who knows what will happen when they merely see me." His father, who did not entertain such concerns, felt in a way that he complied with something decreed already since the time of Abraham. When the Torah describes Joseph as parting from his father in the valley of Hebron, (Genesis 37,14), the Talmud in Sotah 11 comments that the reason that detail is mentioned is to show us that this mission was the first step in the fulfillment of the prophecy which Abraham (who is buried in Hebron) had received that his descendants would be strangers and slaves in a land not theirs (15,13). Joseph obeyed his father's instructions despite the danger he knew himself to be in. Our sages have said in Yevamot 5 that when one is commanded by one's father to desecrate the Sabbath, one must not obey such an instruction, the reason being that both father and son are under G–d's orders to keep the Sabbath holy and thereby to honor G–d Himself. Such exceptions to the requirement to obey father or mother apply only when commandments between man and G–d are involved. When the father's command may jeopardize the son's life without, however, infringing on one of G–d's commandments, the son is not free to disobey his father.

The second category of wine causes drunkenness, is the cause of evil in our world. It certainly does not contain or confer דעת, knowledge. We have a tradition that דעתן של נשים קלות, "the minds of women are fickle" (Shabbat 33 et al.). The "woman" who serves as the role model for this statement in the Talmud is Eve. She had squeezed the cluster of grapes [according to the opinion that the tree of knowledge was a grape vine. Ed.], converted it into wine, and by spoiling it (spiritually) made יין נסך, forbidden wine out of it. The halachic status of such wine is that it is considered as originating in a polluted environment, and the touch of a Gentile makes it unfit for Jews to drink. Women's minds are treated as suspect because the first woman was guilty of creating this category of wine. The Hebrew expression קל, for women's state of mind, is alluded to in the 130 years, i.e. the numerical value of קל, that Adam did not have marital relations with Eve after their expulsion from גן עדן (Rashi on Genesis 5, 3, quoting Bereshit Rabbah). During the 130 years that Adam lived apart from Eve, he emitted קרי, semen which did not fertilize an ovum. This was frivolous and demanded rectification as we shall explain later. The Jewish people suffered 130 years of enslavement in Egypt to make up for those years that Adam separated from his wife. These 130 years were the ones before their redeemer Moses was born. Yocheved, Moses' mother, had been born when Jacob and his clan arrived in Egypt; she was 130 years old at the time she gave birth to Moses (cf. Rashi on 46, 26). Exile itself was a solution chosen by Abraham whom G–d had shown Torah, Gehinnom, sacrifices and exile as possible venues for atonement. Abraham chose exile for his descendants as preferable to purgatory, as explained in Shemot Rabbah 51, 7. The same subject is treated in the Midrash in Parshat Lech Lecha. The main reason Abraham chose exile over purgatory was to prevent his descendants from being within the domain which is full of the spiritual pollution resulting from Adam's sin. The exile experience would serve as a refining process, after which the Jews would merit the proximity of the Divine. They would then merit this יין ישן, the aged wine, which would benefit their spiritual and intellectual development instead of the wine that represented דעת ק"ל.

כי השבע השביע, the repetition of the words “he made swear repeatedly,” was that Joseph did not know which generation would experience the Exodus. Joseph had told his brothers that by committing them to this oath he was not asking them for a favour: they who had been instrumental in his being dragged to Egypt as a slave if they wanted to complete the act of repentance,must ensure that he would be brought to burial in the land of his forefathers from where he had been kidnapped. He had performed a mission on his father’s behalf when he came to Sh’chem (Genesis 37,14) and this is why he expected to be buried near there. This is where he was interred eventually, as we know from Joshua 24,32.

על כן לא יאכלו, “therefore it is appropriate that the Israelites do not eat, etc.;” this construction is parallel to Isaiah 10,7: והוא לא כן ידמה, “but it does not seem like this to him;” in other words: it would be right and proper to punish the Israelites not to eat that particular sinew as they should not have allowed their founding father to be exposed to hostile forces at night. Yaakov’s sons were physically strong, and they should have been at hand to assist their father if the need arose to do so. Seeing that they failed to do this, the blame for the injury sustained by their father was theirs. From now on they would have learned their lesson and would practice the commandment to accompany their father, or for that matter, any older and wiser person, especially at night. Yaakov himself set an example when he accompanied his son Joseph part of the way on a mission which he had sent him on, and which was potentially dangerous. (Genesis 37,14) A different approach to the verse above: as a result of their father Yaakov having stood up to the protective celestial force of Esau, his sons stopped eating the part of the body that the angel had been able to injure. They did this out of a feeling of pride in their founding father. A third approach to this verse: due to their father Yaakov having sustained an injury, his descendants voluntarily decided not to eat the part of the body of an animal that had been injured in their father’s body. This has to be understood better by the use of a parable; a person suffered from a headache or from pains in a different part of his body. As a reminder of that pain he decides not to eat that part of the body of an animal as a symbol of his having been healed from that pain, so that it (abstention) would serve as a remedy for them (preventive medicine) in the future. We have a Baraitah in Chulin 101 which relates that people came to Rabbi Yehudah who had expressed the opinion that the prohibition not to eat that part of an animal also applied to animals that were altogether forbidden to be eaten, questioning his interpretation by citing the fact that only the descendants of Israel were forbidden to eat this part of an animal, and that the Jews had never been called “Children of Israel” until they had been given the Torah at Mount Sinai. He answered them that it is true that this custom did not become law until the Torah was given, but it had been observed already earlier. It was recorded here only in order for us to understand the reason behind this prohibition. Prior to the legislation of dietary laws at Mount Sinai, Yaakov’s descendants were allowed to eat also the meat of animals that were outlawed at Mount Sinai.

על כן לא יאכלו בני ישראל, “therefore the Children of Israel to this day do not eat the thigh muscle, etc.” the words על כן here mean: ”as a permanent reminder of” the miracle that had saved their founding father in his contest with the angel who had only been able to inflict a minor injury on him, instead of killing him as he had intended. The undertaking is similar to a person who after suffering for long periods from headaches or and pains in the region of his heart, vows not to eat the head or the heart of an animal forthwith, as a sign of gratitude for having been healed. An alternate interpretation. The words על כן, mean: “as a result of this,” i.e. as a result of having narrowly escaped death as a result of having remained exposed to danger alone during the night, the Israelites learned that this is not the correct way to behave at night and alone. Abstaining from eating the thigh muscle is the visible reminder of the fact that this lesson had been internalised by the people as an inadmissible way to behave. Yaakov’s wives and children accepted part of the responsibility for their leader’s injury by having allowed him to cross the river alone at night and thus having exposed him to danger. This is why G–d forbade them (his descendants the Jewish people) to eat this part of the animal. They should be meticulous in observing the commandment to give people safe conduct. This is why already Yaakov was commanded to give Joseph safe conduct on his fateful mission. (Genesis 37,14) [where he accompanied him part of the way where he might be exposed to danger by the Canaanites. Ed.]

They buried in Shechem. From Shechem he was stolen [kidnapped] (See Bereishis 37:14.) and to Shechem they returned him.

While Eitan makes a compelling point, one may respond that there are two factors influencing Koresh. One is Hashem and another is his fear of Belshatzar’s fate (We must also consider the fact that Koresh/Cyrus permitted other nations to return to their lands from which the Babylonians expelled them and rebuild their temples. This is evident from the famous artifact called “the Cyrus Cylinder” that is housed at the British Museum. Perhaps Cyrus, as was typical of ancient pagans, foolishly believed in multiple gods and he wanted to appease, or at least avoid angering, each of them.) . The Tanach is replete with examples of what many refer to as “dual causality”, referring to events influenced by both divine manipulation and humans exercising their free will. The sale of Yosef is a classic example. While the brothers had their motivations, Hashem guided events to execute the Brit Bein HaBetarim (see Rashi to Bereishit 37:14 s.v. Meieimek Chevron). Many understand the Mishna 3:15 “HaKol Tzafui VeReshut Netunah”, all is foreseen yet we retain free will, as expressing this idea (Similarly, American President Harry Truman was most likely influenced by Hashem to ignore his cabinet (including his eminent Secretary of State George Marshall) and encourage the establishment of Medinat Yisrael. Yet, he likely also had his own calculations such as courting the Jewish vote in 1948, an election year.) .

The brothers preferred a businesslike transaction to having to confront Joseph personally. The coldness of their dismissal, their utter indifference to the warmth that Joseph was trying to nurture among them, (Seforno on Genesis 37:14, 17.) was underscored by the midrash that the brothers agreed to sell him for a token pittance – the price of a pair of shoes for each of them. (Tan. VaYeshev, 2. Rabbi Ari Kahn comments on the curiosity of this detail in the context of Judah’s central role in mekhirat Yosef. He points out that immediately after this episode, Judah engaged in relationships with abandon, investing none of them with special meaning or care. The nadir of this descent is when he refused his yibum responsibility with Tamar. An almost inexplicable halakhah of ĥalitzah, the ceremony of divesting oneself of yibum obligation, was to have the scorned widow remove the shoe of her late husband’s kin who would not fulfill his levirate duties. This act demonstrated that the yabam showed a lack of care, a lack of sense of familial responsibility – he callously left his dead brother bereft of a future. Echoes, Bereishit, 258–69.)

He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word. There are different versions of this statement in the Haggadah. There are texts that appear similar to the version I have included and others that (omit it and) continue with, “And he resided there…” Rambam in the Mishnah Torah (Sefer Zemanim) offers such a version. It states “And he resided there – He only went down to dwell there temporarily;” It does not include, “Compelled by the Divine Word.” There is no question that the various versions are based on the different opinions which I mentioned above as the reason for the exile to Egypt. (In between the commentary on “Originally our ancestors worshipped idols” and “It is the promise that stood for our ancestors and for us” Abarbanel offers a lengthy analysis on the Covenant of the Pieces (Gen. 15). It is given a separate name, Kuntras B’inyan Brit Bein HaBetarim, “A Pamphlet Regarding the Covenant between the Pieces.” This essay is a literary unit unto itself. As he does in the Haggadah, Abarbanel begins with a series of questions and then answer them. In his commentary, he suggests three reasons why Jacob’s family was compelled to go down to Egypt: They were punished for selling Joseph into slavery. They went down to Egypt so that they would be purified and improved by their experience. They went down to Egypt simply because of the free will choices they made for themselves. Abarbanel now suggests that the different versions of the Haggadah may be determined by these different reasons for the exile.) According to the first approach (it was punishment for the sale of Joseph) and according to the third approach (because of the bad choices they made) it doesn’t make sense to say that they went down to Egypt “compelled by the Divine Word.” Jacob and his sons had free will in the matter and were not forced to go down to Egypt. According to the second reason (So they would be purified and improved by their experience) that they went down to Egypt because of a divine decree, one should include the statement in the text, “He went down to Egypt – Compelled by the Divine Word.” After all, Jacob was afraid to go down to Egypt but God forced him to go. This is similar to what was expounded, “So he sent him from the valley (emek) Hebron and he came to Sh’chem. (Gen. 37:14) From the deep (amukka) counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: “Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years.” (Gen. 15:13) It was as if the Cause of all Causes, who made Jacob to go down to Egypt. This is what the Haggadah means when it says, “Compelled by the Divine Word.”

[15] Now you notice that Scripture goes out of its way to record even the place from which he dispatches him, all but giving the reader a plain hint to avoid the literal interpretation. For it says “out of the vale of Hebron” (Gen. 37:14). Now “Hebron,” a “coupling” and “comradeship,” is a figurative title for our body, because it is “coupled” with a soul, and has established a friendship and “comradeship” with it. As “vales” it has organs of sense, great receivers of all objects of sense outside it. These pump over the understanding the countless qualities of things, and pour them in upon it through the receivers, flooding it and totally submerging it.

And the Rabbis say that the source is from here, the verse that describes when Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers: “And he said to him: Go now, see whether it is well with you brothers and well with the flock; and bring me back word. So he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem” (Genesis 37:14). The verse indicates that Jacob sent Joseph at a time when he could see his brothers, i.e., during the day. This shows that a Torah scholar should not go out alone at night.

This is as it is written there: “Thus said the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house” (II Samuel 12:11), and this prophecy was fulfilled through Absalom. Similarly, you can say about Joseph, who was sent by his father to inquire as to the well-being of his brothers, where the verse states: “And he sent him from the valley [emek] of Hebron” (Genesis 37:14). Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says: From the deep [amukka] counsel of that righteous individual who is interred in Hebron, i.e., Abraham, as it is written: “And He said unto Abram: Know that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). The journey Joseph took to his brothers set in motion the descent of the Jewish people to Egypt.

He [Yisrael] said to him, Go please [now], see after the well-being of your brothers, and the welfare of the sheep, and bring me a report. He sent [Yoseif] from the depths [plain] of Chevron, and he came to Shechem.

And he said, Go, see the welfare of Your brethren, and the welfare of the flock, and return me word to the deep Counsel. But he sent him according to the deep counsel which was spoken to Abraham in Hebron; for on that day began the cativity of Mizraim. And Joseph arose, and came to Shekem.

וימצאהו איש והנה תעה בשדה, “a man found him while he was lost in the field;” this (the three letters in the word תעה) is where the Angel Gavriel gave Joseph a hint of three exiles the Jewish people would endure. ת=400 years of exile in Egypt; ע=70 years of exile in Babylon; ה=5, till the end of the exile commonly known as the Roman exile, till the coming of the Messiah. [The author attributes this to his father of blessed memory. Ed.] He adds that he had heard something along the same lines in the name of Rabbi Binyamin Gozel, but from Genesis 32,5, using the letters of word עתה as the hint.

My brothers. And from where would he know who he [Joseph] was and who his brothers were? And furthermore, what is this question "tell me please where they are pasturing"? From where would he know? Rather, [it must be] one of the two these possibilities: Either he was a well-known man to them in his importance, or, he recognized him as an angel or prophet that knew everything to do with his brothers. And in truth, the Torah should have said "and he [Joseph] found a man", for it was Joseph that was wandering alone searching and found the man, not the man who was walking on his way. Rather, the text comes to teach that the man was a messenger from Heaven, to encounter Joseph and bring him to such, and the man went and found him in that place.

AND A CERTAIN MAN FOUND HIM. According to the plain meaning of the text a passer by found him. (According to the Midrash it was an angel. Some Midrashim identify the angel as Gabriel. Cf. Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer, Chap. 38; Targum Jonathan, and Rashi.)

A man found him, and, see, he was lost in the field. This is Gabriel. From what is said, 'A man found him,' understand that this man had been seeking Joseph. He had been looking around for him, and he found him. But Joseph didn't find the man. The man intended to warn Joseph that he should be wary of his brothers. He saw that he was wandering in the field, mistaken in his opinion that he had gone towards peace, but there would be no peace for him and his brothers. Thus this must be an angel - he knew what was in Joseph's heart. If this is not the case, then how would he know who this other man was, or that he was walking this way in error. Maybe this is his path? Obviously Joseph must have been walking on some road or pathway!

Its midrashic interpretation is that he erred regarding the matter of the field, as is written of Cain and Abel. It would have been reasonable for Joseph to take to heart what had happened to Abel with Cain. Out of jealousy, Cain had killed his brother. Now Joseph thought: "Cain killed his brother ('when they were in the field') over a field. He said, 'This field that you are standing on belongs to me.' That is the reason for why he did what he did. However, why would my brothers kill me for nothing? Jealousy over a multicolored cloak does not resemble jealousy over a field!" This is the meaning of 'He was lost in (=mistaken about) the field.' The field referenced in the Cain story misled him. He did not realize that the nature of jealousy is volatile - for some little thing a man might rise against his fellow and murder him.

וימצאהו איש , after arriving in Shechem and not finding any trace of his brothers, Joseph went in all directions to see if he could find them, and in the process he lost his way.

AND A MAN FOUND HIM, AND BEHOLD, HE WAS STRAYING IN THE FIELD. The verse is stating that Joseph was straying from the road, not knowing where to go, and he entered a field since he was looking for them in a place of pasture. Scripture mentions this at length in order to relate that many events befell him which could properly have caused him to return, but he endured everything patiently for the honor of his father. It also informs us that the Divine decree is true and man’s industry is worthless. The Holy One, blessed be He, sent him a guide without his knowledge in order to bring him into their hands. It is this that our Rabbis intended when they said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:13.) that these men (And ‘a man’ found him … and ‘the man’ asked him … And ‘the man’ said … (Verses 15, 17).) were angels, for these events did not occur without purpose, but rather to inform us that It is the counsel of the Eternal that shall stand. (Proverbs 19:21.)

'וימצאהו איש והנה תועה וגו, this paragraph has been written in order to demonstrate the reliability and eagerness of Joseph to comply with his father’s wishes; he did not use the fact that the brothers were no longer in Shechem as an excuse to abort his mission and to return home, but kept searching for them until, in the end, he located them. He remembered that part of his father’s instructions had been השיבני דבר, “bring me back a report!”

וימצאהו איש AND A MAN FOUND HIM — This was the angel Gabriel (Genesis Rabbah 84:14) as it is said, (Daniel 9:21) and the man (והאיש) Gabriel” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2:3).

תועה בשדה, walking in every direction to find where they were tending the flocks.

מה תבקש, what are you looking for seeing that you do not keep to the known paths?

This refers to Gavriel... Yoseif did not say to the man, “Do you know my brothers, and where they are pasturing?” Rather, he said [straight away], “Tell me please, where are they pasturing?” This shows it was an angel, [who assumedly knows]. And since Scripture refers to him as איש, this shows it was specifically Gavriel. [Furthermore,] if it was not an angel, why did the Torah recount the whole story of Yoseif going astray? What does it matter if he went straight there, or strayed? Perforce, it was an angel sent by Hashem to bring him to his brothers, in order to fulfill His decree. For Yoseif otherwise would have turned back from Shechem, as he could not find them. (Gur Aryeh)

A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. Despite the fact that Joseph was seeking an entire group of shepherds herding a large flock, he could not locate them. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek?

והנה תועה בשדה, ”and here he was lost in the field.” He had departed from the road and entered a field, knowing that his brothers would choose the best looking pasture available.

“A man came upon him” [37:15]. An angel named Gabriel found Joseph. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:15.) Toldot Yizhak writes. The custom was that when a person was going to a field, he would ask people to show him the right path, but the people did not ask him, what are you looking for? Here it was the opposite. A man came to Joseph and said, what are you looking for? This was certainly an angel who wanted to lead Joseph to his brothers, in the expectation that he would come to Egypt. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:15.) Another explanation is that it had to be an angel, since Joseph said to the man, “could you tell me where they are pasturing?” [37:16]. Tell me where my brothers are pasturing. One can ask: Joseph should have asked the man if he knew where his brothers were pasturing and then he should have asked, tell me where they are pasturing? The explanation is that Joseph understood that this is an angel. Therefore, he asked him, tell me where they are pasturing. That is to say, you are an angel. Tell me where are my brothers? If you want to ask, who tells us that this is Gabriel? You could say, it was another angel? The explanation is that the angel Gabriel is the one called “the man Gabriel” [Daniel, 9:21], and here it is written, “a man came upon him” [37:15]. (Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chap. 38.)

(1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference "that is why the men came to my house for shelter" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, "out of our way," the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, "if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end," had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two "pearls" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- "You could at least have told me that she is your wife," Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of "What is yours is yours" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the "What is mine is yours" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant "although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you." Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that "something that had kept him tied up, had now been released." This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. "G-d remembered Sarah as He had said," by making her pregnant. "He did for Sarah as He had said," He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, "Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is "He made a laughter, a joy for me." (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as "how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 "Who has born me these?" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 "Who is this that comes from Edom"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter.

We propose to proceed along two premises in answering all the questions raised. First of all, it is clear from Torah, the books of Prophets and the holy scriptures, that whenever beings that are purely spiritual appear to someone in our world, such beings appear garbed in human clothes. Hagar, Manoach, Gideon, all had encounters with angels dressed in human garb, and on that very account had doubts as to the identity of the party that addressed them. Similarly, whenever our sages speak of malachim mamash, such as the angels that Jacob sent to divine if Esau had hostile intentions towards him, what are meant by that expression are spiritual beings appearing in human form. Since we are not equipped to behold pure spirits, it is necessary to provide these beings with a shell, so that they can become visible to our eyes. The appearance of the prophet Elijah, with whom innumerable encounters are described, is then also an encounter with a spirit in human garb. Samuel's appearance then is bound to be of the same kind, and he would have to appear in human form. (The story in Ketuvot 105, further supports our theory) All of this is part of G'ds kindness in arranging for communication with the spiritual world for those who deserve it in varying degrees. The appearance of Samuel, dressed in a cloak, such as he used to wear while still on earth, is no surprising phenomenon then.

[3] Another interpretation:"And El Shaddai did not need to say 'grant you mercy' but rather 'grant you mercy before the king,' or 'before the ruler,' just as it is written, 'and Joseph was the ruler, etc.'" (Genesis 42:6) Why does it say "before the man"? It could have just said to give you mercy before the king, or before the ruler, as it is written "and Joseph was the ruler, etc." (Genesis 42:6). And why did his mother call him by his name Joseph, as it is written "And she called his name Joseph" (Genesis 30:24), while Pharaoh called him Zaphenath-paneah ["treasury of the glorious rest"] (Genesis 41:45) and the Egyptians called him Avrech [father in wisdom.] (Genesis 41:43)? Jacob omitted all of these names and only said "And El Shaddai, etc." before the man. Why, when his father sent him to his brothers, did the angel who was assigned by God to watch over him find him wandering and ask him what he was looking for? As it is written "And a man found him, and behold he was wandering in the field" (Genesis 37:15), and he said to him "What are you looking for?" and he answered "I am looking for my brothers." Once he arrived there, they threw him into a pit, then took off his coat, and then sold him four times, as it is written "Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away" (Amos 2:6). And when the tribes went down to Egypt, as soon as he saw them, he had compassion on them." As it is written, "And Joseph recognized them" (Genesis 42:8). "And he turned himself away from them and wept" (Genesis 42:24). Immediately, the angel descended and appeared to Joseph in the form of a man, and he said to him, "Why do you have mercy on these people? Don't you know how much they have troubled you? They threw you into a pit and sold you four times. He began to accuse them and said to Joseph, "Immediately he revealed himself to them" (Genesis 45:1). He said to them, "Don't you know that I am a magician? I take the cup, smell it, and make myself a magician. He said to them, "I know that you are spies, but if you are honest, then you are finished." (Genesis 42:19). When they came to Jacob and said to him, "What do you think the king of Egypt said to us? He is not merciful to us." Only one person knows where he sent us from, and he stands and accuses us before him, as it is written, "The man said, 'Your servant, our lord, has asked us about our family'" (Genesis 43:7). For the man said, "You are spies" (Genesis 42:14). He said to them, "There is a man who accuses you, so be kind to him, as it is written, 'And Almighty God will give you mercy before the man' (Genesis 43:14), and not only before this man, but before all nations, as it is written, 'give them compassion before those who carried them captive.' (I Kings 8:50)"

“Messengers [malakhim]” – these were flesh and blood messengers. The Rabbis say: Actual angels. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Hagar was Sarah’s maidservant and five angels happened upon her, (See Genesis 16:7–12.) this one who is the beloved of the household, all the more so. If several angels escorted Eliezer, (See Genesis 24:7 and Bereshit Rabba 59:10.) who was a slave of the household, this one, who was the beloved of the household, all the more so. Rabbi Yosei said: Joseph was the youngest of the tribes and three angels escorted him; that is what is written: “A man found him” (Since the “man” is unidentified and appears by chance, and also plays a crucial role in the story, the midrash understands that the mysterious man was, in fact, an angel.) (Genesis 37:15), “the man asked him” (Genesis 37:15), “the man said to him” (Genesis 37:17); this one, who was the father of them all, all the more so. “Before him” – before the one whose time to assume kingship was before his. (See Genesis 36:31.) Rabbi Yehoshua said: He removed his royal purple garment and cast it before him. He said to him: ‘Two starlings cannot sleep on one board.’ (Our kingdoms cannot overlap.) “To Esau his brother” – although he is Esau, he is his brother. “To the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” – he is ruddy, his cooked food is red, his land is red, his mighty are red, his garment is red, and a red one will exact retribution from him in red garments. He is ruddy – “the first emerged ruddy” (Genesis 25:25); “his cooked food is red” – “feed me please from that red, red dish” (Genesis 25:30); “his land is red” – “to the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” (Red, adom, is similar to Edom. See Genesis 25:30.) ; “his mighty are red” – “mighty ones are colored scarlet…” (Nahum 2:4); and a red [adom] one will exact retribution from him – “my beloved is clear and ruddy [adom]” (Song of Songs 5:10); in red garments – “why is there red on your garments?” (Isaiah 63:2).

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

"straying": "straying" in all instances connotes outside of the boundary. Though there is no proof for this, there is support for it in (Genesis 37:15) "and, behold, he was straying in the field."

(Gen. 37:15:) THEN A MAN FOUND HIM, < i.e., > an angel. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:14.)

And Jacob said to him: “Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren … and he came to Shechem (ibid. 37:14). (B. Sanhedrin 10:29.) This place had previously been designated for punishment. Dinah was dishonored in Shechem, Joseph was sold in Shechem, (Dothan, the place where Joseph was sold, was in the vicinity of Shechem; in addition, tradition maintains that he was buried in Shechem.) and David’s kingdom was divided at Shechem: Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim (I Kings 12:25). And a certain man found him (Gen. 37:15). The man referred to is none other than (the angel) Gabriel, as it is said: The man Gabriel (Dan. 9:21). And they saw him from afar … and they took him, and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:18, 24). The pit was empty of water, but it contained snakes and scorpions. What did Reuben do? He remained upon one of the hills nearby in order to rescue Joseph during the night. However, the nine other brothers stayed together in another place, all in agreement that he should die.

Another man, who is he? This is Joseph, as it says (Genesis 37:15), "And a man found him, and behold! he was wandering in the field, so the man asked him, saying, 'What do you seek?'" He feared the Lord, as it says (Genesis 42:18), "On the third day, Joseph said to them, 'Do this and you will live, for I fear God.'" He will guide us in the way to choose, as he did not sin with his master's wife. His soul leaned toward good. He is buried in the cave, and his descendants will inherit the land, as it says (Numbers 32:33), "So Moses gave to them, to the sons of Gad and to the sons of Reuben and to half the tribe of Manasseh the son of Joseph, the kingdom of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, and the kingdom of Og, the king of Bashan, the entire land with its cities and the territory surrounding them."

We perceive Eliezer setting out on his mission with Mattaron hovering over him, invisibly. Whenever the Torah employs the word עבד in this narrative, the reference is to Eliezer the earthly עבד. Whenever the Torah mentions the word האיש in the narrative, the reference is to the עבד עברי של מעלה, to Mattatron. We have other examples when such an angel is referred to by the Torah as איש, and our sages have defined such an איש as מלאך, an angel. One such example is Genesis 37,15. Rashi, quoting Midrash Tanchuma, says that this was the angel Gabriel. In 24,17, we find “וירץ העבד לקראתה, followed in verse 21 by והאיש משתאה לה.” Onkelos translates this latter verse as meaning that Eliezer remained standing looking on silently. He was reflecting on whether the Heavenly input indicated that his mission was succesful or not. The word לדעת, to know, in verse 21 is a veiled reference to the tree of knowledge.

ויצא משה לקראת חתנו, Moses went out to meet his father-in-law, etc. Seeing that Yitro had pleaded that Moses welcome either his wife or his sons or both, the Torah is at pains to tell us that Moses considered Yitro as deserving to be welcomed by him in his own right, hence the emphasis on לקראת חתנו. Perhaps Moses even went so far as to demonstrate this point by going only to Yitro's tent at this point, ignoring his wife and children till somewhat later. Mechilta makes the additional point that seeing that Moses prostrated himself in front of Yitro this is proof that he went out in order to honour Yitro. Our sages say that Moses honoured Yitro greatly. If the Torah had not stressed that Moses went to meet his father-in-law, how would I have known that he did not go out in order to welcome his wife and sons specifically?

וישתחו וישק לו, He prostrated himself and kissed him, etc. Our rabbis in the Mechilta say that it was not clear who prostrated himself before whom and who kissed whom. When the Torah wrote איש in "they asked each other how they were," it became clear that Moses prostrated himself as he qualified for the description איש. The fact that the Torah does not mention that two people prostrated themselves makes it plain that only one of the two prostrated himself before the other. Should you argue that Yitro too has been referred to as איש in Exodus 2,21 where Moses is reported as agreeing to stay with Yitro, there is a subtle difference when Moses is called איש and when Yitro is called איש. Let me first explain the precise nature of the title איש, seeing that every male adult is called איש, if only to distinguish him from his female mate. We even find the term איש applied to animals such as in Genesis 7,2 where the Torah speaks of the pure animals which Noach is to take into the ark with him. The meaning of the word איש undergoes a change when it is used together with the name of the person concerned. In such instances it describes that person as someone of breeding and nobility. We find an example of the word איש or אנשים being used as a complimentary description in Numbers 13,3 where the people whom Moses had selected as spies were described as all being אנשים after we had already been told their names. On the other hand, when the word איש is used in lieu of a name it does not denote exceptional qualities such as Genesis 37,15 the man who found Joseph unable to locate his brothers in Shechem. The same applies in Genesis 24,21 where Eliezer is referred to as האיש. We are told in Bamidbar Rabbah 16, that the use of the word אנשים is complimentary only when the actual names of these people are recorded also. When G'd asked Bileam who the אנשים were who had come to him that night, (Numbers 22,9), clearly no compliment was intended. On the other hand, in Exodus 11,3, when Moses is described as האיש משה גדול מאד the word האיש is clearly highly complimentary. The same is true even of Exodus 32,23 when the mixed multitude refer to the fact that Moses had not returned from the Mountain. These people described Moses as the most perfect human being they had ever encountered. In the case of Yitro we do not find that the word איש is applied to him by the Torah in conjunction with his name, only in lieu of his name. When he is referred to in that context, the word האיש, (i.e. a pronoun) has neither a complimentary nor a derogatary meaning. The word is simply one used to describe a male.

AND HE APPEARED TO HIM. Rashi comments: “To visit the sick man. Said Rabbi Chama the son of Chanina, ‘It was the third day after his circumcision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired after him.’ (“After him.” In our text of Rashi: “after the state of his health.”) And, lo, three men: (Verse 2 here.) angels who came to him in the form of men. Three: one to announce to Sarah that she would bear a son, one to heal Abraham, and one to overthrow Sodom. Raphael who healed Abraham went from there to rescue Lot” for these do not constitute two commissions. (“One angel does not carry out two commissions.” (Bereshith Rabbah 50:2 and mentioned in Rashi here.) But, continues Ramban, these two missions given to the angel Raphael—healing Abraham and rescuing Lot from Sodom—do not violate the principle. See text.) This is because the second mission was in another place, and he was commanded thereon after [he had completed his first mission]. (It is as if he was sent on a new mission in another place after he had completed his mission in a different place. For it is clear that the principle of one angel not carrying out two commissions applies only to two simultaneous commissions, as explained in Mizrachi’s commentary on Rashi.) Perhaps it is because the two missions had rescue as their common goal. (Since healing and rescue are missions with a common purpose, one angel could be charged with both missions.) “And they did eat: (Verse 8 here.) they appeared to be eating.” In the book Moreh Nebuchim (Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43.) it is said that this portion of Scripture consists of a general statement followed by a detailed description. Thus Scripture first says that the Eternal appeared to Abraham in the form of prophetic visions, and then explains in what manner this vision took place, namely, that he [Abraham] lifted up his eyes in the vision, and lo, three men stood by him, (Verse 2 here.) and he said, if now I have found favor in thy eyes. (Verse 3 here.) This is the account of what he said in the prophetic vision to one of them, namely, their chief. Now if in the vision there appeared to Abraham only men partaking of food, how then does Scripture say, And the Eternal appeared to him, as G-d did not appear to him in vision or in thought? (In other words, why does Scripture begin the chapter with the statement, And the Eternal appeared to him, when in the detailed account of the vision it is explained that he saw only angels?) Such is not found with respect to all the prophecies. And according to his (The author of the Moreh Nebuchim.) words, Sarah did not knead cakes, nor did Abraham prepare a bullock, and also, Sarah did not laugh. It was all a vision! If so, this dream came through a multitude of business, (See Ecclesiastes 5:2.) like dreams of falsehood, for what is the purpose of showing him all this! (Since the vision concerning the preparation and the eating of the meal were not relevant to the prophecy of the birth of Isaac.) Similarly did the author of the Moreh Nebuchim say (Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43.) in the case of the verse, And a man wrestled with him, (Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel.) that it was all a prophetic vision. But if this be the case, I do not know why Jacob limped on his thigh when he awoke! And why did Jacob say, For I have seen an angel face to face, and my life is preserved? (Ibid., Verse 31.) The prophets did not fear that they might die on account of having experienced prophetic visions. Jacob, moreover, had already seen a greater and more distinguished vision than this since many times, in prophetic visions, he had also seen the Revered Divinity. (Ibid., 28:13.) Now according to this author’s opinion, he will find it necessary for the sake of consistency to say similarly in the affair of Lot that the angels did not come to his house, nor did he bake for them unleavened bread and they did eat. (Ibid., 19:3.) Rather, it was all a vision! But if Lot could ascend to the height of a prophetic vision, how did the wicked and sinful people of Sodom become prophets? Who told them that men had come into Lot’s house? And if all these [i.e., the actions of the inhabitants of Sodom], were part of prophetic visions, then it follows that the account related in the verses, And the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise take thy wife. …And he said, Escape for thy life… See, I have accepted thee, (Ibid., Verses 17-21.) as well as the entire chapter is but a vision, and if so, Lot could have remained in Sodom! But the author of the Moreh Nebuchim thinks that the events took place of themselves, but the conversations relating to all matters were in a vision! But such words contradict Scripture. It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more to believe in them! In truth, (Ramban partially agrees with Rambam’s position. He says that wherever seeing or hearing an angel is mentioned in Scripture, it refers to a vision since the human senses can not perceive an angel. However, wherever Scripture ascribes human appearances to the angels, as in the case of Abraham, then their presence is sensually perceived. Other differences of opinion between Ramban and Rambam regarding prophecy are mentioned further on in the text.) wherever Scripture mentions an angel being seen or heard speaking it is in a vision or in a dream for the human senses cannot perceive the angels. But these are not visions of prophecy since he who attains the vision of an angel or the hearing of his speech is not yet a prophet. For the matter is not as the Rabbi (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139.) pronounced, (Moreh Nebuchim, II, 41.) i.e., that every prophet, Moses our teacher excepted, received his prophecy through the medium of an angel. The Sages have already said (Megillah 3a.) concerning Daniel: “They (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi—three prophets who lived at the beginning of the second Temple.) were greater than he for they were prophets and he was not a prophet.” His book, likewise, was not grouped together (The Men of the Great Assembly redacted the books of the Bible. See Baba Bathra 15a. They placed the book of Daniel in the section of the Writings. (Ibid., 14 b).) with the books of the prophets since his affair was with the angel Gabriel, even though he appeared to him and spoke with him when he was awake, as it is said in the vision concerning the second Temple: Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel,etc. (Daniel 9:1.) The vision concerning the ultimate redemption (From the beginning of Chapter 10 there.) also occurred when Daniel was awake as he walked with his friends beside the Tigris River. (Ibid., 10:4. As for his friends, see ibid., Verse 7. Tradition specifies that these were Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (Megillah 3a.)) Hagar the Egyptian (She was not a prophetess even though angels appeared to her. (Above, 16: 7.) Ramban thus differs with Rambam, who had said that all prophets received the prophecy through the medium of an angel. Rambam’s position is defended as follows: Rambam’s intent was not that whenever an angel is seen it is an instance of prophecy. Rather his intent was that whenever prophecy comes to any of the prophets it comes through an angel. However, it is possible that an angel may appear for the purpose of conveying information to one who is not a prophet. This was the case with Daniel and Hagar.) is not included in the group of prophetesses. (In Megillah 14 a, the Rabbis list seven prophetesses who arose in Israel: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah and Esther. Hagar however was not listed among them. See Note 103 further.) It is also clear that hers was not a case of the bath kol (prophetic echo), (Guide of the Perplexed, II, 42. See Friedlander’s note on bath kol, p. 199, n.2.) as the Rabbi (Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139.) would have it. Scripture, furthermore, sets apart the prophecy of Moses our teacher from that of the patriarchs, as it is said, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] G-d Almighty, (Exodus 6:3.) this name being one of the sacred names for the Creator, and not a designation for an angel. Our Rabbis also taught concerning the difference in the degree of prophecy between Moses and the other prophets, and they said: (Vayikra Rabbah 1:14.) “What is the difference between Moses and all the prophets? The Rabbis say that all prophets saw through unclear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And I have multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used similitudes. (Hosea 12:11.) Moses saw through a clear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And the similitudes of the Eternal doth he behold,” (Numbers 12:8.) as is explained in Vayikra Rabbah (Vayikra Rabbah 1:14.) and other places. But in no place did the Sages attribute the prophecy of the prophets to an angel. Do not expose yourself to argument by quoting the verse, I also am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spoke unto me by the word of the Eternal, saying, (I Kings 13:18. From this you might argue that the prophets themselves attributed their prophecy to an angel. This is not correct, as is explained in the text.) since its meaning is as follows: “I also am a prophet as thou art, and I know that the angel who spoke to me was by word of G-d, this being one of the degrees of prophecy, as the man of G-d said, For so was it charged me by the word of the Eternal, (Ibid., Verse 9.) and he further said, For it was said to me by the word of the Eternal. (Ibid., Verse 17.) Our Rabbis have further stated (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:13.) in the matter of Balaam, who said, Now, therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back, (Numbers 22:34.) [that is as if Balaam commented]: “I did not go [with the messengers of Balak] until the Holy One, blessed be He, told me, Rise up, go with them, (Ibid., 22:20.) and you [i.e., an angel], tell me that I should return. Such is His conduct! Did He not tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, after which the angel of the Eternal called to Abraham, And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad. (Further, 22:12.) He is accustomed to saying something and to have an angel revoke it, etc.” Thus the Sages were prompted to say that the prophecy comprising the first charge where G-d is mentioned is not like the second charge of which it is said that it was through an angel, only this was not unusual, for it is customary with the prophets that He would command by a prophecy and revoke the command through an angel since the prophet knew that the revocation was the word of G-d. In the beginning of Vayikra Rabbah (1:9.) the Sages have said: “And He called to Moses, (Leviticus 1:1.) unlike Abraham. Concerning Abraham it is written, And the angel of the Eternal called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven. (Further, 22:15.) The angel called, and G-d spoke the word, but here with respect to Moses, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is I Who called, and it is I Who spoke the word.’” That is to say, Abraham did not attain prophecy until he prepared his soul first to perceive an angel, and from that degree he ascended to attain the word of prophecy, but Moses was prepared for prophecy at all times. Thus the Sages were prompted to inform us everywhere that seeing an angel is not prophecy, and those who see angels and speak with them are not included among the prophets, as I have mentioned concerning Daniel. Rather, this is only a vision called “opening of eyes,” as in the verse: And the Eternal opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Eternal; (Numbers 22:31.) similarly: And Elisha prayed, and said, O Eternal, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. (II Kings 6:17.) But where Scripture mentions the angels as men, as is the case in this portion, and the portion concerning Lot — likewise, And a man wrestled with him, (Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel.) And a certain man found him, (Further, 37:15.) in the opinion of our Rabbis (According to the Sages the man who wrestled with Jacob was the angel of Esau (Bereshith Rabbah 77:2), and the man who found Joseph was the angel Gabriel (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2).) — in all these cases there was a special glory created in the angels, called among those who know the mysteries of the Torah “a garment,” perceptible to the human vision of such pure persons as the pious and the disciples of the prophets, and I cannot explain any further. And in those places in Scripture where you find the sight of G-d and the speech of an angel, or the sight of an angel and the speech of G-d, as is written concerning Moses at the outset of his prophecy, (Exodus 3:2.) and in the words of Zechariah, (Zechariah 1:14, etc.) I will yet disclose words of the living G-d in allusions. Concerning on the matter of the verse, And they did eat, (Verse 8 here.) the Usages have said: (Bereshith Rabbah 48:16.) “One course after the other disappeared.” (That is, the angels really did not eat. Rather as soon as a dish of food was brought, it was consumed by fire.) The matter of “disappearance” you will understand from the account about Manoah, (Judges 13:19.) if you will be worthy to attain it. Now here is the interpretation of this portion of Scripture. After it says that In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, (Above, 17:26.) Scripture says that G-d appeared to him while he was sick from the circumcision as he was sitting and cooling himself in his tent door on account of the heat of the day which weakened him. Scripture mentions this in order to inform us that Abraham had no intention for prophecy. He had neither fallen on his face nor prayed, yet this vision did come to him.

[10] “Come then let me send thee to them,” (ibid.), that is, ‘submit to be summoned elsewhere, and draw nigh and entertain in thine understanding a ready eagerness for the receiving of better teaching. Up to the present time thou deludest thyself with the idea that thou hast welcomed the true education. For thou professest to be ready to be taught otherwise, though thou hast not yet in thine own heart acknowledged thy need of this. Thy cry “Here am I” seems to me to convict thee of rash and reckless compliance, rather than to indicate readiness to learn. A proof of this is that soon afterwards the real man will find thee wandering in the way (Gen. 37:15), whereas thou never wouldst have lost the way hadst thou with a healthy resolve come to be trained.

[17] Seeing, therefore, that Joseph has utterly sunk into the hollows of the body and the senses, he challenges him to quit his lurking-place and go forward and draw a free draught of the spirit of stedfastness by resorting to those who were once aspirants after it, and are now teachers of it. But he, though he fancied that he had made a move forward, is found wandering: for he says, “a man found him wandering in the plain” (Gen. 37:15), showing that toil by itself is not good, but toil accompanied by skill.

[22] Some say that the proper name of the man who found him wandering on the plain has not been mentioned (Gen. 37:15). Those who say so are themselves, too, in some sort astray, owing to their inability to see clearly the right way in matters generally. For had they not been smitten with partial blindness of the soul’s eye, they would have recognized that the name which most correctly describes the real man and most thoroughly belongs to him is simply “man,” the most proper title of a mind endowed with reason and articulate utterance.

[24] This challenger inquired of the soul when he saw it wandering, “What seekest thou?” (Gen. 37:15). ‘Is it sound sense thou art seeking? Why then dost thou walk upon the path of cunning? Is it self-mastery? But this road leads to stinginess. Is it courage? Rashness meets thee by this way. Is it piety thou art in quest of? This road is that of superstition.’

A man found him going astray in the field. The man asked him, What are you seeking?

And Gabriel in the likeness of a man found him wandering field. And the man asked him, saying, What seekest thou?

And he said, I am seeking my brothers… (37:16) The Zohar says: Rabbi Yehuda commented on the verse: “O, were you like my brother, who nursed from the breasts of my mother. When I would find you outside, I would kiss you.” (Song of Songs 8:1). I would find You outside – meaning, in the exile, in other lands.” (Zohar I:184a, on Genesis 37:16.) In this piece of Zohar, one can find the words of the Baal Shem Tov, that in the Diaspora, special help is available to a person seeking Divine inspiration, (Ruach HaKodesh.) despite the fact that the Shechina does not dwell in exile. (Zohar II:5a, 82a.) Even if a person is not entirely worthy, heaven is still not so particular with him, as in the Land of Israel. For when a king is on the road, he must sleep in inns and hotels that are not as clean and beautiful as befitting his honor; yet, the king is not disgraced, because everyone knows that he is traveling. Understand this well. (The Baal Shem Tov means that because the Divine Presence is in exile in the world, and no longer focused in the land of Israel and the Holy Temple, it is actually easier to come to a perception of G-d than in the past. On this idea, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye writes (Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Ekev, 181b): “Especially in our time, when the Divine Presence is in exile and finds no place to rest, as soon as a person prepares all of his actions for the sake of heaven, he immediately becomes a “throne” for the Shechina, which rests upon him. He is even considered higher than those of earlier generations, when there were many Tzaddikim in the world; whereas today, “the pious man ceases” (Psalms 12:2) – that is, those who are pious before their Creator (Zohar III:281b). A person should strengthen himself like a warrior, and show kindness to the Shechina, so that he becomes a throne for the attribute of Loving-Kindness (Chesed). Just as in Abraham’s time, when there was no one to help the Shechina but him, now too, besides a very few individuals, no one thinks about how to help and support the Shechina in this bitter exile. Thus, a person who is willing to sacrifice will certainly become a throne for the Divine Presence with the trait of loving-kindness.”) Igra d’Pirka 148

Therefore, of Yosef it is said: “Yosef brought bad reports of them [to their father]” (Genesis 37:2). This is the element of severities, since the left hand pushes away (Sotah 47a). , “I am seeking my brothers” (Genesis 37:16). This is the element of benevolences, since the right hand brings close (Sotah, ibid .) .

WHERE THEY ARE FEEDING THE FLOCK. If you know. (If you know either is implied or was actually said by Joseph and is left out of the text, our verse being abridged. The above has to be the case because otherwise why did Joseph asssume the man knew where his brothers were keeping the sheep?)

הגידה נא לי, "PLease tell me!" How did Joseph know that the stranger knew where his brothers were to be found? He did not ask the man if he knew; he only asked him to reveal his knowledge! Perhaps Joseph concluded from the word לאמור which the stranger used that he had some information that was useful for Joseph. Since there was no one else around, why would the stranger have used the word לאמור, to say, before asking "what do you seek?"

הגידה נא לי, if you know where they are tending their flocks.

איפה הם רועים, in which section of this region.

He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. Joseph undoubtedly described their appearances to the man.

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

?מי איפוא הוא, if it is indeed true that you are Esau, who was the one who served me venison? When the word איפוא appears with the letter א at the end, the word is an alternative for the two words אם כן, “if so.” When the same word (phonetically speaking) is spelled with the letter ה at the end, as for instance, in Genesis 37,16 איפה הם רועים?, the word means the same as איה, “where?”

The Gemara comments: But if that is the proof, say that Job lived in the time of Isaac, as it is written in connection with Isaac: “Who then [eifo] is he that has taken venison” (Genesis 27:33). Or say that he lived in the time of Jacob, as it is written with respect to Jacob: “If it must be so now [eifo], do this” (Genesis 43:11). Or say that he lived in the time of Joseph, as it is written with respect to Joseph: “Tell me, I pray you, where [eifo] are they feeding their flocks?” (Genesis 37:16).

He said, I am looking for my brothers, tell me please [now], where are they pasturing?

And he said, I seek my brothers; show me, pray, where they feed.

נסעו מזה 'they have moved on from here.” They had been grazing their flocks there until recently.

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here; they have said that they are no longer interested as being 12 tribes”. The numerical value of the letters in the word זה is 12.

TO DOTHAN. Dothan is spelled both with and without a yod in our verse. In either case it refers to one and the same place.

נסעו מזה, כי שמעתי אומרים, "They have moved away from here, for I have heard them say, etc." Why did the stranger have to preface his information by saying: "they have moved away from here?" It would have sufficed for him to say: "I have heard them say: 'let us go to Dothan!'" Rashi explains that the words mean that the brothers had abandoned the path of brotherliness (and devised legal schemes to kill him). If so, why was Joseph not worried enough to turn around and to return to his father's home? What greater degree of danger could there be? In fact, was Joseph not guilty of almost committing suicide by continuing to search for his brothers?

Perhaps Joseph did not understand the warning properly. Our sages who had the benefit of hindsight were able to interpret the words of the "man" as a warning. Joseph who was not blessed with such hindsight had no reason to see a dire warning in these harmless sounding words. He merely understood that his brothers had not only left Shechem but the whole district. The reason the "man" added "I have heard the brothers say: 'let us go to Dothan,' was to explain what he meant by "they have moved from here.'" He could not say with certainty that the brothers had actually arrived at Dothan. He only had knowledge of their intention. It did not occur to Joseph that the man with whom he talked was an angel; therefore he did not try to read any more into the man's words than appeared obvious. When the Torah writes: "Joseph went after his brothers and he found them in Dothan," this is in order then. Had Joseph understood the veiled warning of the "man," the Torah should have written: "Joseph followed his brothers to Dothan and found them." Joseph searched for his brothers seeing that the man had not been precise about their present location. As a result of his search, Joseph found his brothers in Dothan. Our sages' interpretation of what occurred is perfectly in order, i.e. that the Torah reveals that the angel who spoke to Joseph had given him a veiled warning.

Proof that Joseph had not understood this is that the Torah reports Joseph as searching for his brothers. He was under the impression that they still considered him their brother.

The question we must all ask is that if the angel remained deliberately so vague that Joseph did not understand his warning, why did he direct him to a location which was so fraught with danger for Joseph? Perhaps, after having become aware that Joseph's intention was to find brotherliness, i.e. את אחי אנכי מבקש, the angel wanted to increase the merit Joseph would accumulate by persisting in such a worthwhile endeavour. For all we know this is how Joseph acquired the merit necessary to qualify ultimately as the ruler of Egypt and the provider for his family.

כי שמעתי אומרים, “for I have heard (them) say, etc.” The word אותם is missing in the text. נלכה דותינה , “let us go to Dotan.” Our sages (Rashi) suggested that this wording was meant to alert Joseph to danger. The words: “they moved away from here” were something that Joseph did not need to be told because he already had found out. These words were the clue to the angel’s warning. In other words, when Joseph indicated that he sought a brotherly relationship with them, the angel cautioned him that they were no longer open to such advances. [Joseph did not understand this oblique warning. Ed.] The sages speak of נכלי דתות, “contriving legislation,” instead of נלכה דותינה. If we take this at face value Dotan was not the name of a location. At any rate, Joseph did not “read between the lines” and understood the meaning of his words to be simply that they had moved to a place called Dotan and went in search of that location. He found the brothers in Dotan, something which the Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 describes as the natural conclusion of the angel’s piece of warning “they have moved from here,” i.e. they have changed their attitude. When the Torah continues that the brothers plotted to kill him by using the word ויתנכלו, this is confirmation of the expression found in the Midrash that they contrived to find a legal opening for disposing of Joseph. Some of our sages claim that as soon as Joseph approached close enough to be identified, his brother set dogs upon him. [In this fashion they would not have become guilty of laying a hand on him. Ed.] The dogs, however did not harm Joseph (Nachmanides). As a last resort, when Joseph insisted on going to them instead of realising that the brothers themselves had set the dogs on him, they decided that they had to kill him directly, with their own hands. This is the meaning of verses 19-20, “let us go and kill him.”

מזה, from this area. We find the expression used in a similar meaning in 38,21 לא היתה בזה, “there was no (prostitute) in this location.”

כי שמעתי אומרים, “that they were saying, etc.”

THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE. “They have departed from any feeling of brotherhood. ‘Let us go to Dothan, that is, let us go to seek pretexts of dathoth (laws) with which to put you to death.’ According to the literal sense, however, Dothan is the name of a place, and Scripture never sheds its literal sense.” This is Rabbi Shlomo’s [Rashi’s] language. Now it was not the intent of our Rabbis to say that the man expressly told him, “They have departed hence from any feeling of brotherhood, and they have gone to stir up charges and pretexts against you,” for if so, he would have avoided going there and would not have endangered himself. Instead, their intent is to say that “the man” — Gabriel (So identified in Rashi (Verse 15), and the source thereof is Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 38.) — who told it to him told the truth, but he spoke words having a double meaning, both of them true. Joseph, however, did not grasp the hidden meaning therein, and he followed the obvious. He thus followed his brothers and found them in Dothan, as he had told him. The Rabbis expounded this on the basis of the fact that the “man” referred to was an angel, and if so, he knew where the brothers were. Why then did he not say, “They are in Dothan,” instead of speaking as if he was in doubt, i.e., that he heard from them that they were going to Dothan but he does not know where they are at present. It is for this reason that they expounded the above Midrash concerning his words.

FOR I HEARD THEY ARE SAYING. “I heard that they were saying.” (Ramban’s intent is to explain that the Hebrew shamati omrim, literally, “I heard they are saying,” is as if it were written, shamati shehayu omrim, “I heard that they were saying,” thus referring to a past event.) Similarly the expression, Rebekah hears, (Above, 27:5.) means that she heard. It is possible that he is saying: “The shepherds have gone from here for I heard people saying, (According to this interpretation, Gabriel spoke concerning people in general as if he did not recognize that these shepherds were his brothers.) ‘Let us go to Dothan.’ Perhaps they were your brothers.” The man thus spoke with him as if he were avoiding the subject.

בדותן, according to the plain meaning this was the name of a town, and the town is also mentioned in the Book of Kings II 6,13.

נסעו מזה THEY HAVE JOURNEYED HENCE — they have departed from all feeling of brotherhood.

נלכה דתינה LET US GO TO DOTHAN — “let us go to seek some legal (דתות) pretexts” to put you to death. According to the literal sense, however, it is the name of place, and Scripture never really loses its literal sense (Shabbat 63a).

Ob sich an Dotan eine Erinnerung knüpfte, die ihrer Stimmung und ihren Absichten noch mehr als Sichem zusagte, ob Sichem von anderer Seite doch auch das Brudergefühl zu sehr wach rief, dem gegenüber דותן eine Erinnerung brachte, die, wie der Name דת ahnen lässt, das Rechtsgefühl mehr emporstachelte — wissen wir nicht.

נסעו מזה, there is no question that they have departed from this grazing area, there is no point in searching any part of this region.

כי שמעתי אומרים, the reason why I said that they certainly no longer are in this region is because I myself overheard them saying “lets move on.”

אחר אחיו, even though he had not been able to locate them in Shechem as his father had asked him to do, he went to more trouble than he was required to, in order to fulfill the wishes of his father.

They have removed themselves from brotherhood. Rashi is answering the question: How does the angel’s reply pertain to Yoseif’s inquiry? Yoseif only requested to be told where they were, while the angel replied, “They have traveled from here.” Furthermore, Yoseif already knew they traveled from there, since he did not find them there. Thus Rashi explains, “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” I.e., they want to kill you — do not go there. [You might ask:] how does Rashi know it means [specifically] this? The answer is: זה in gematria is twelve. Thus, it means they have moved away from twelve. I.e., they do not want there to be twelve [brothers], rather they want to kill you, and there will be only eleven. Alternatively, Rashi’s proof is that it says, “From this.” In other words, they have moved away “from this” which you say, “I am looking for my brothers.” They, however, have removed themselves from brotherhood.

To seek lawful pretexts concerning you... Rashi is answering the question: The angel said to him נסעו מזה, meaning: “They have removed themselves from brotherhood.” If so, what is the meaning of, “Because (כי) I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Doson’”? The word כי always comes to give a reason. What reason is given here? Thus Rashi explains: lawful pretexts concerning how to kill you.

The man said: They traveled from here; for I heard them saying to each other: We shall go to Dotan, and it is likely that they arrived there. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan.

נסעו מזה, “they have moved away from here quite some time ago.” Rashi interprets the expression as not referring to physical distance, but as referring to the bonds of brotherliness. The man (angel Gavriel) did not tell him this in so many words, for had he done so Joseph certainly would not have continued on his way. The angel used a double entendre, which could be interpreted in one of two ways. Both interpretations would correspond to the truth. The principal reason our sages interpret this is that all the angel had to say was: ”they went to Dotan.” The introductory words: “they have moved away from here,” were quite irrelevant, and therefore must be intended to teach us something additional.

“The man said, they have gone from here” [37:17]. Rashi asks a question here. Why did the angel respond that the brothers had left here, since Joseph had asked, where are my brothers? The angel should have answered briefly; they have gone to the city of Dothan. The explanation is that the angel did not say to him go to your brothers. They will kill you. This is the meaning of the verse “gone from here.” That is to say, your brothers no longer consider you as a brother. They have renounced their brotherhood. Therefore, the verse says, “from here.” The word “here” [zeh] has the numerical value of twelve. That is to say, your brothers are saying that there should not be twelve brothers, but eleven brothers, since we will not consider Joseph a brother. Joseph did not turn away, but still went to his brothers, out of respect for his father, which would protect him. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:17.) Here one asks a question. If Jacob did accompany Joseph on his way, why was Joseph harmed on the way. The accompaniment did not protect him. The explanation is that Jacob had intended that Joseph should only go to the city of Shechem. It was for this purpose that Jacob accompanied Joseph, but Joseph went further and that is why the accompaniment did not help beyond that. Why did Jacob only intend that he should go to Shechem and no further? The explanation is that the Holy One wanted it to happen in this way, so that Joseph should come to Egypt.

“Messengers [malakhim]” – these were flesh and blood messengers. The Rabbis say: Actual angels. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Hagar was Sarah’s maidservant and five angels happened upon her, (See Genesis 16:7–12.) this one who is the beloved of the household, all the more so. If several angels escorted Eliezer, (See Genesis 24:7 and Bereshit Rabba 59:10.) who was a slave of the household, this one, who was the beloved of the household, all the more so. Rabbi Yosei said: Joseph was the youngest of the tribes and three angels escorted him; that is what is written: “A man found him” (Since the “man” is unidentified and appears by chance, and also plays a crucial role in the story, the midrash understands that the mysterious man was, in fact, an angel.) (Genesis 37:15), “the man asked him” (Genesis 37:15), “the man said to him” (Genesis 37:17); this one, who was the father of them all, all the more so. “Before him” – before the one whose time to assume kingship was before his. (See Genesis 36:31.) Rabbi Yehoshua said: He removed his royal purple garment and cast it before him. He said to him: ‘Two starlings cannot sleep on one board.’ (Our kingdoms cannot overlap.) “To Esau his brother” – although he is Esau, he is his brother. “To the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” – he is ruddy, his cooked food is red, his land is red, his mighty are red, his garment is red, and a red one will exact retribution from him in red garments. He is ruddy – “the first emerged ruddy” (Genesis 25:25); “his cooked food is red” – “feed me please from that red, red dish” (Genesis 25:30); “his land is red” – “to the land of Se’ir, the field of Edom” (Red, adom, is similar to Edom. See Genesis 25:30.) ; “his mighty are red” – “mighty ones are colored scarlet…” (Nahum 2:4); and a red [adom] one will exact retribution from him – “my beloved is clear and ruddy [adom]” (Song of Songs 5:10); in red garments – “why is there red on your garments?” (Isaiah 63:2).

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

(Ibid., cont.:) AND HERE HE WAS WANDERING < IN A FIELD >. The angel said to him: Do you not know that you are going astray? He said to him (in vss. 16-17): I AM SEEKING MY BROTHERS…. THEN THE MAN SAID: THEY HAVE MOVED ON FROM HERE. What is the meaning of FROM HERE? When they see you they become cruel. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:17, explains that FROM HERE means “from brotherhood.”)

(Gen. 37:17, cont.:) FOR I HEARD THEM SAYING: LET US GO TO DOTHAN. What is the meaning of TO DOTHAN (DTYNH)? Our masters have said that the angel was watching out for the Law of the Lord (DT YH).

(Gen. 37:17-18:) SO JOSEPH WENT AFTER HIS BROTHERS…. NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR, while he was a mile (Lat.: mille.) away.

A man found [ Joseph] wandering around in the fields and asked him, “What are you looking for?” He replied, “I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?” “They have moved on from here,” the man answered. “I heard them say, ‘Let’s go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them near Dothan. (Gen. 37:15–17)

ורצון שכני סנה, "and the goodwill of the One who allotted me a place at the burning bush." Moses refers to the time when he found favour in G'd's eyes who appointed him to release the Jewish people from their painful bondage. This is the reference to his having stood in front of the burning bush.

תבאתה לראש יוסף ולקדקוד, "may these rest on the head of Joseph, etc." Moses speaks in respect of two outstanding virtues of Joseph. 1) Although he had been exiled to Egypt and had experienced many temptations and injustices he remained loyal to his father's upbringing. (Compare what Midrash Rabbah 1,7 writes on Exodus 1,5, i.e. "although Joseph was in Egypt.") Moses alluded to this when speaking of ראש יוסף. 2) The second virtue of Joseph deserving special mention is the fact that he repaid the evil his brothers had done to him by doing good for them. Tanchuma explains this on Genesis 37,17 נסעו מזה. In spite of the brothers having severed their connection with Joseph at that time, he provided for them as we know from Genesis 47,12.

מזה אתכם, "with you from this place." The word מזה does not mean "from here," i.e. that Joseph thought the brothers would have to locate his remains exactly in the place where he made them swear this oath. Joseph used the expression as the reason he asked the brothers to swear such an oath. He considered it as a small repayment of all the favours he had done for the brothers during their stay in Egypt. He went so far as to hint that taking his bones out of Egypt for burial in the Holy Land would compensate for the time when they had separated themselves from their brotherhood with him; the angel had told Joseph in Genesis 37,17 that the brothers נסעו מזה "had departed from זה" (the number 12, symbol for the 12 brothers, compare Bereshit Rabbah 84). Joseph used the words מזה אתכם to indicate that if the brothers would fulfil their oath he would consider them as having re-instated him in their midst. The sin they had committed against him at that time would then have been wiped out. In other words, Joseph would forgive the brothers posthumously, for simply swearing the oath.

ויהי הוא טרם כלה לדבר, “and it was before he had finished speaking, etc.” We need to understand the need for the apparently extraneous word הוא in this verse. All the Torah had to write to tell us that Rivkah appeared before Eliezer had completed his prayer was ויהי ככלותו לדברו, “as soon as he had finished speaking, etc.” Actually, the word הוא in this verse is not a personal pronoun, i.e. “he,” but a name of G-d. (compare Genesis 19,33 where we encountered this word in that context) We have numerous examples of the word הוא being a reference to a name of G-d, such as Psalms 100, 3 הוא עשנו ולו אנחנו, “He has made us and we belong to Him;” Numbers 18,23 ועבד הלוי הוא, ”and the Levite will serve G-d, etc.;” the word הוא in that verse means that Eliezer enjoyed G-d’s special assistance in his mission by means of the angel concerning whom Avraham had prayed to G-d that He should make Eliezer’s mission successful (verse 7).The angel, was at hand already before Eliezer had completed praying and he arranged for Rivkah to be the maiden whom Eliezer would address first with his request for water. This is why the Torah wrote: והנה רבקה יוצאת, “and here Rivkah was already in the process of coming out, etc.” The word והנה means that what follows was the result of a special arrangement, invitation. If the servant immediately ran towards her (verse 17) it was because he had noticed the water of the well rising to meet Rivkah on her descent. This is what our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 60,5 have derived from the wording in our verses here. At that moment Eliezer already understood what Avraham had meant when he had said to him that G-d would send His angel ahead. This is also what he related once he was in Bethuel’s house when he told the family that Avraham had assured him already before he set out on his journey that G-d would send His angel ahead and that he would succeed (verse 40). In view of this it is easy to understand that from the moment that Eliezer had become aware that the angel was supporting him the Torah refers to him no longer as עבד, servant, but as איש, a man of stature. Up until then we read about וישם העבד, “the servant placed;” ויקח העבד, “the servant took;” וירץ העבד, “the servant ran.” From this point on the Torah keeps referring to Eliezer as האיש until he leaves the house of Bethuel with Rivkah. The expressionהאיש is applied to the angel Gavriel in Daniel 9,21. It is also applied to the angel who told Joseph that his brothers had moved away from Shechem, (Genesis 37,17) and that they had been overheard as planning to move to Dothan. In other words, as of the time the angel joined Eliezer in his quest, he himself assumed the role of the angel in an executive manner. The words והאיש משתאה לה (verse 21) which appear to be somewhat problematical if we assume Eliezer and the angel to have become as one, must be understood as “he was waiting for her;” he did so as he had become aware that his mission was about to be crowned with success. Having done so, the Torah from now on refers to him constantly as האיש, such as when we read (verse 22) ויקח האש, or (verse 26) ויקוד האיש, or (verse 30) כה דבר אלי האיש, etc. When, a little while later, Lavan and Bethuel gave their consent for Eliezer to take Rivkah (verse 51) and they said הנה רבקה לפניך קח ולך, “here Rivkah is in your presence, take her and go,” at which point Eliezer’s mission had been completed, the Torah reverts to describe Eliezer as עבד instead of as האיש. In verse 53 when Eliezer is reported as sharing out gifts, as well as in every subsequent move of his, the Torah speaks of העבד, “the servant,” seeing that the angel’s assistance was no longer required for that part of his activity. Avraham’s prayer which invoked the assistance of an angel had been answered in full. If you were to ask that when Lavan and his mother asked Rivkah if she were willing to go עם האיש הזה, “with this man,” and this occurred only in verse 58, after verse 51 which we described as the point at which Eliezer’s mission had basically been completed, the answer is simple. The words reported in verse 58 were not spoken by the Torah but by Lavan and his mother. They certainly were not bound by the considerations we described before. How could they be expected to refer to someone as “this slave,” when the person in question was distributing lavish gifts to every member of their household, not to mention to Rivkah herself? Would it not have been a gross insult to their sister to ask her is she were willing to leave her parental home in order to travel to a distant land “with this slave?” Concerning verse 61 in which both Rivkah and her maids are reported as traveling אחרי האיש, which appears to contradict the explanation I have offered that Eliezer had reverted to being an עבד the moment consent had been obtained for her to become Yitzchak’s bride, this wording was chosen by the Torah in honour of Rivkah. It would not have looked respectful if she had been described as riding “behind the slave.” Another approach to the words והאיש משתאה לה. It is an allusion to the angel who had tarried and waited at the well until the arrival there of Rivkah. From that moment on Eliezer took over the task of the angel; hence he is referred to as האיש from that moment on. Support for this theory is found in the text near the end of the episode where the Torah said (verse 61) “they walked behind האיש, “and the עבד took Rivkah and he went.” This verse makes it crystal clear that the subjects איש and עבד respectively could not have been one and the same.

The man said, “They’ve moved on from here, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan’” (Genesis 37:17). Rashi: They’ve moved away from brotherhood. Their journey to Dothan indicates that they seek against you legal pretexts (nikhlei datot) to kill you.

When he reached Shechem, a man came upon him wandering in the fields. The man asked him, “What are you looking for?” He answered, “I am looking for my brothers. Could you tell me where they are pasturing?” The man said, “They have gone from here, for I heard them say: Let us go to Dothan.” So Joseph followed his brothers and found them at Dothan. Genesis 37:14–17

[127] For we are told that “a man found Joseph wandering in the plain, and asked him, ‘What art thou seeking?’ and he said ‘I am seeking my brethren; tell me, where are they feeding their flocks?’ And the man said to him, ‘They have departed hence, for I heard them saying, Let us go to Dothan.’ And Joseph went his way after his brethren, and found them in Dothan” (Gen. 37:15–17).

[5] ‘The reason,’ I should be inclined to say, ‘that Laban is not on thy side, is that God is with thee; for in a soul in which the outward object of sense is valued as a supreme good, in that soul excellent reason is not found: but in one in which God walks, the outward object of sense is not regarded as a good thing: and it is to this that the conception and name of Laban corresponds.’ And such men as order themselves by the principle of gradual progress in accordance with their father’s rule, have chosen the plain as a suitable place for their task of teaching the soul’s irrational impulses a better way. For the words addressed to Joseph are: “Do not thy brethren tend their flocks in Sychem? Come let me send thee to them.” And he said “Here am I.” And he said to him “Go see, whether thy brethren are in good health and the sheep, and bring me word.” And he sent him out of the valley of Hebron, and he came to Sychem. And a man found him wandering in the plain: and the man asked him “What seekest thou?” And he said “I seek my brethren, tell me where they feed their flocks.” And the man said to him “They have departed hence, for I heard them saying ‘Let us go to Dothaim.’ ” (Gen. 37:13–17).

So it is a right answer that the man gives who has seen the deceit: “they have departed hence” (Gen. 37:17).

“A man found [Yosef] wandering around in the fields and asked him, ‘What are you looking for?’ He replied, ‘I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?’ ‘They have moved on from here,’ the man answered. ‘I heard them say, “Let’s go to Dotan.”’ So Yosef went after his brothers and found them near Dotan” (Bereshit 37:15–17).

The man said, They have traveled on from here, for I heard them say, Let us go to Doson. Yoseif went after his brothers and found them in Doson.

And the man said, They have journeyed hence: for I heard beyond the Veil, that behold from today would begin the servitude to the Mizraee; and it was said to them in prophecy, Hivaee would seek to set battle in array against them. Therefore said they, we will go unto Dothan.

"They saw him from a distance." The explanation is that they foresaw Joseph in the distant future, distanced from the service of God due to the calves of Jeroboam. Before he approaches, they will revolt against him. The great Rabbi, Rabbi Yedidya El-Farchi, may his memory be a blessing, explained that it has been many years since I, the poor one, have directed my attention more to the knowledge of the Almighty, in an expanded sense, with the help of God.

THEY CONSPIRED. Va-yitnakkelu (they conspired) means they had evil designs. Nokhel (dealeth craftily) in But cursed be he that dealeth craftily (nokhel) (Mal. 1:14) is similar.

"And they saw him afar off" It is necessary to know, when saying "and before" (Gen. 37:18), whether it applies to what was before it, as follows: 'And they saw him afar off before he came near to them' or if it [namely, the word "before"] is the beginning of what comes afterwards, as follows: 'Before he came near to them they conspired regarding him...' Both interpretations are difficult: if it applies to what was before it, it should have said 'before he came near' [not AND before he came near], and if it is the beginning of what comes afterwards, it should have said 'and before...they conspired' [not AND they conspired]. Maybe the addition of the vav was meant to increase distance, meaning that you shouldn't say that the distance implies that he [Joseph] has not yet approached them [his brothers], rather "and before he came near to them" means they saw him at an exaggerated distance.

We could say further that "and they saw him from afar off" refers to the distance of their hearts, because they did not see him as brothers see their brothers, rather, they saw him like a man distant from them; "and before he came near..." means that this seeing was also "before..." and if it hadn't said "And before" with a vav it would have implied the reading of distance above [namely that they saw Joseph at a great physical distance], therefore the vav was added, to show that the matter was different [namely that the distance was emotional]. One could also offer a different explanation of the text, but it appears that this is the best reading.

ויתנכלו אותו, the word אותו here means the same as the preposition בו, “against him.” We find other instances where this preposition is used in connection with this root, as in Psalms 105,25 להתנכל בעבדיו, “to plot against His servants.” The root also occurs in connection with the preposition ל, as in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו לכם, “which they conspired against you.” The word basically refers to scheming against someone in one’s heart.

AND THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO SLAY HIM. They thought to kill him with their subtle intrigues by which they had conspired against him before he drew near to them (According to Tur this refers to attempting to kill him with arrows.) so that they would not have to spill his blood with their own hands. Thus did the Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah: (84:13.) “Let us set the dogs against him.” And perhaps they did so but did not succeed. Now, when they saw that he was approaching them and they could not kill him with their intrigues, they said to each other, “Behold, he has come to us, so let us kill him ourselves.”

ויתנכלו אותו, they were full of devious and nefarious thoughts. The word occurs in this sense in Maleachi 1,24: וארור נוכל, “cursed the person who plots deviously.”

ויתנכלו AND THEY CONSPIRED — The Hithpael form denotes that they became filled with plots and craft.

אֹתוֹ is here the same as אִתּוֹ which means “with him” — meaning אליו: they became filled with plots and craft directed towards him (אליו).

ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו. Siporno erinnert mit Recht, daß: wider jemanden einen Plan schmieden, nicht heißen könne ויתנכלו אותו, sondern — יתנכלו בו. Der Hitpael mit את, wie והתנהלתם אותם, verwandelt das im Reflerixum liegende Objekt zum Terminativ und das einheitliche Objekt ist das mit את eingeleitete: והתנהלתם אותם, ihr sollt sie euch (dat.) vererben. וכל בגד וכל כלי עור וגוי תתחטאו: und jedes Kleid und jedes Geräte usw. sollt ihr euch (dat.) entsündigen. ויתנכלו אותו ist daher eben so viel als: וַיְַנְכלו אותו להם. Der Piel גַדֵל ,צַדֵק usw. heißt ebensowohl: jemanden für gerecht, groß halten und erklären, als ihn dazu machen. So kann וינכלו אותו להם sehr wohl heißen: sie hielten ihn sich für einen נוכל, sie stellten ihn sich als נוכל vor. In בנכליהם אשר נכלו לכם erscheint (Bamidbar 25, 18) נכל als Bezeichnung eines Verfahrens, durch welches dem sittlichen Leben unseres Volkes das höchste Verderben bereitet wurde. Ebenso ארור נוכל (Maleachi 1, 14): wehe dem, der unter dem Scheine, das Heiligste zu begehen, gerade dieses Heilige in seinem Innern aufs tiefste höhnend verletzt. Er hat Würdiges und weiht Gott absichtlich einen נכל .בעל מום heißt somit: auf versteckte Weise die höchsten Interessen des andern gefährden. Als er zu ihnen herankam, stellten sie ihn sich als einen, ihre heiligsten und edelsten Interessen aufs tiefste gefährdenden Menschen in einem solchen Grade vor: להמיתו, daß man ihn töten dürfe, daß, zur Selbstverteidigung ihn zu töten, ihnen gerechtfertigt erschien.

ויתנכלו אותו להמיתו, the root נכל always means to plan to do something evil. One example of the use of this word in this sense is found in Numbers 25,18 אשר נכלו אתכם, “who plotted against you.” The brothers had entertained the thought of causing Joseph’s death while they saw him from a distance. They did not think that he had come to make peace with them but that he was spying on them to either cause them to commit a sin which would bring their father’s curses on them or which would cause G’d to punish them. As a result of this, Joseph imagined he alone would survive as blessed of all of Yaakov’s sons. The expression ויתנכל in the reflexive conjugation described what a person fantasizes about in his mind, what imaginary scenarios he entertains in his head. You find the expression in Samuel I 28,9 אתה מתנקש בנפשי, “(the witch of Endor speaking to King Sha-ul who had disguised himself) “you are trying to trap me into forfeiting my life, trying to get me killed! The word להמיתו in our verse refers to Joseph causing the death of his brothers. [While it is true that the word is separated from the word אותו preceding it by the tone sign tipcha which refers to what came before, in the opinion of this Editor it should then have read להמיתם to cause their death,” instead of “to cause his death.” Ed.] We find the expression used in a similar sense in Deuteronomy 4,14 לעשותכם אותם, “so that you will fulfill them.” [the author describes the function of the transitive conjugation of the root נכל and עשה respectively, not any similarity of the subject matter under discussion in the two verses mentioned. Ed.] If we understand the thoughts described in our verse in this vein, we can solve the riddle of how the stones on the breastplate of the High Priest could have been inscribed with the names of all these brothers, if instead of being as righteous as such models ought to have been in order to serve as inspiration for us, they had indeed harboured such murderous thoughts without justification. Even if the brothers’ intention to sell Joseph had been based on mere hatred, how could such brothers qualify as inspiration for the Jewish people of the breastplate of the High Priest? We must therefore endeavour to understand the collective feelings of the brothers as being that they actually felt themselves threatened by Joseph’s aspirations and they were convinced that when one feels threatened one is entitled or even obliged to take measures to neutralise the source of the danger. This is even a halachic principle clearly spelled out in Sanhedrin 72. If we needed any proof for the truth of the brothers’ feelings, it is best provided by their conversation among themselves while in jail (42,21) when they felt that G’d had repaid them for their misdeeds. They did not regret selling Joseph, nor even having planned to kill him; the only thing they regretted and considered themselves guilty of was that they had not responded to Joseph’s pleas for mercy. In other words, even over 20 years after the event they were still convinced that Joseph had posed the sort of threat to their existence which entitled them to take extreme defensive action against him.

Similar to אתו, with him, meaning toward him. Rashi is answering the question: How does אוֹתוֹ fit with ויתנכלו? The verb ויתנכלו is reflexive, and means: “They became filled with conspiracies,” thus it does not connect with אוֹתוֹ. If Scripture had written וַיְנַכְלו, [a transitive verb,] אוֹתוֹ would fit. But with ויתנכלו, the fitting word is אליו. Thus Rashi explains that אוֹתוֹ is similar to אִתּוֹ. Rashi is saying that if we follow how it is written [rather than how it is pronounced,] we would read it אִתּוֹ, since it is written missing a ו. Alternatively, [Rashi knows this] because אוֹתָנו sometimes means אִתָנו. Thus, אוֹתוֹ can mean אִתּוֹ. And אִתּוֹ means עמו. And Rashi says, “עמו, meaning אליו,” because Onkelos translates אליו as עמו; see Rashi on 24:7. Consequently, it is as if the verse said אליו. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויתנכלו אתו להמיתו, rather than simply ויתנכלו להמיתו? Perforce, אוֹתוֹ is like אִתּוֹ, “with him.” Thus it means, “They were plotting with him,” i.e., also Yoseif had in mind that they should kill him. And lest we think it means that he and they had in mind to kill someone else, Rashi says that אותו also implies אליו, “toward him” — toward Yoseif. He and they had in mind to kill Yoseif. There is also a varying text of Rashi.

They saw him from afar, and he was alone and likely in an isolated place, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him. Their hatred of Joseph was so intense that once they encountered him alone and outside their father’s home, they were stirred to rid themselves of him.

ובטרם יקרב אליהם ויתנכלו אותו להרגו, “and before he could come close to them, they made plans how to kill him.” The meaning of this phrase is that the plans they made were how to kill him before he could come close to them so that they would not have to lay a hand on him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,14 on that verse, we are told that they released ferocious dogs in his direction. When they realized that the dogs had not attacked him, they said: “let us kill him (with our own hands).”

“They conspired to kill him” [37:18]. The brothers thought that they wanted to kill Joseph, but they should not touch him with their hands to kill him. They incited vicious dogs to attack him, but God helped him. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:17.)

According to Rabbi Yehudah, who states that the messengers were of the flesh and blood variety, Jacob may have displeaesd G-d in some manner. The fact that no help was forthcoming from G-d until the night following the return of the messengers supports our view that until Jacob had exhausetd all means at his disposal to ensure that the encounter would be successful, Providence would not manifest itself. Only after the successful struggle with the "man," concluding Jacob's preparations for the fateful encounter, would G-d offer His reassurance. From this we learn the importance of doing all one can to ensure one's success. (1) Jacob instructed the servants in a manner that would show that he was treating Esau with the courtesy due an older brother. (6) Calling all the giftbearers together would have revealed inner fear both to them and to members of his family. He told Esau that he had stayed with Laban all these years, in order to show Esau that he had not felt the need to run away from Laban. He indicated that he could understand Esau's reluctance to welcome a brother who had hired himself out for wages; since by now, however, he had acquired a fortune, Esau need not be ashamed of his poor brother. (2) The fact that the messengers returned without actually having met Esau proves they must have been angels; who else would have arrogated to himself the right to return "mission unaccomplished?" Moreover, who else would have offered gratuitous advice to Jacob? They did so in order to give Jacob time enough to arrange the gifts and to send them ahead. When Joseph encountered the "man" while he is searching for his brothers, he is also given gratuitous advice. In that case also, we assume it was an angel who proffered that advice (Genesis 37,16-18).

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

And Jacob said to him: “Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren … and he came to Shechem (ibid. 37:14). (B. Sanhedrin 10:29.) This place had previously been designated for punishment. Dinah was dishonored in Shechem, Joseph was sold in Shechem, (Dothan, the place where Joseph was sold, was in the vicinity of Shechem; in addition, tradition maintains that he was buried in Shechem.) and David’s kingdom was divided at Shechem: Jeroboam built Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim (I Kings 12:25). And a certain man found him (Gen. 37:15). The man referred to is none other than (the angel) Gabriel, as it is said: The man Gabriel (Dan. 9:21). And they saw him from afar … and they took him, and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:18, 24). The pit was empty of water, but it contained snakes and scorpions. What did Reuben do? He remained upon one of the hills nearby in order to rescue Joseph during the night. However, the nine other brothers stayed together in another place, all in agreement that he should die.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

According to the Kabbalists the Heavenly objective was to wipe out the residual guilt of the brothers which had not been atoned for when they sold Joseph. We can find numerous allusions in our פרשה, which relate to the manner in which these Ten Martyrs were killed. According to tradition, Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava had three hundred לונכיות, lances, stuck into his body. The word ויתנכלו להמיתו, in 37, 18 is an allusion to this; the letters are simply a re-arrangement of the word לונכיות.

BY THEIR WILES. Be-nikhlehem (by their wiles) means by their evil thoughts. Be-nikhlehem is related to the word va-yitnakkelu (they conspired) in they conspired against him (Gen. 37:18). (Both words come from the same root, nun, kaf, lamed.)

And he fled to Meggido. He was struck as a result of a conspiracy [=בְנִכְלִיּוּת]. (See Rashi in Bereishis 37:18. In some editions Rashi’s text is מוּכָּה בְלוּנְכִּיוֹת [=struck by spears].)

going tale bearing between copper and iron. They introduce hatred between two princes who have the power to provoke one another. That is what I heard. But I say, they are tale bearers, and they are as strong as copper and iron to maintain their falsehood. Jonathan, however, renders this word רכיל as an expression of guile (נוכל). They go with guile as one mixes copper with iron. נוכל is an expression of plot. Comp. (Gen. 37:18) “And they plotted (ויתנכלו) against him to slay him.”

They saw him from a distance, and before he approached them they were plotting against him to kill [thinking about killing] him.

And Joseph went after his brothers, and found them in Dothan. And they saw him from afar, before he had come nigh to them, and plotted against him to kill him.

הלזה בא, “has not this one arrived?! (come closer)” (they were surprised that Joseph had dared to follow them all this distance). On the other hand, the word: והלאה is used to describe something that becomes more and more distant.

הלזה; whenever the word הלזה is mentioned it refers to someone or something that one sees from afar, indistinctly. For instance in Genesis 24,65 Rivkah asked Eliezer who the man was who was approaching them from a distance. The word הזה, on the other hand, refers to someone or something close at hand, as for instance Haman in Esther 7,6, to whom Esther points when the King asked here who the culprit was who wanted to destroy her and her people.

בעל החלומות wie בעל מזמות ,בעל כנפים, dem Flügel zu seiner Bewegung. Pläne zu seinen Absichten als Werkzeug bereit stehen. So בעל החלומות, dem Träume zu seinen Absichten bereit stehen, Meister der Träume.

הנה בעל החלומות, they meant “the one who told us about his dreams in order to make us angry.” They meant that Joseph had wanted them to commit a sin as a result of their anger so that they would bring down upon themselves the wrath of their father or of G’d. causing our destruction in either event.

They said one to another: Here comes that dreamer. Joseph’s dreams caused the brothers’ hatred toward him to intensify. By mockingly referring to Joseph as “that dreamer,” the brothers expressed their deep animosity toward him. Furthermore, the word “that” indicates that the brothers viewed Joseph as a hostile stranger, and not as their brother.

Chapter 40: Torah [1] And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). Twenty generations passed until Abraham, in which old age is not mentioned except for him, as it says, "Now Abraham was old" (Genesis 24:1). And Isaac also stood [before God] and it came to pass, that when Isaac was old (Genesis 27:1). And Jacob also stood [before God], as it says, "And the eyes of Israel were dim with age" (Genesis 48:10). The verse (Psalms 102:17) says, "He will regard the prayer of the destitute, and not despise their prayer." The only way [to achieve this level of prayer] is through old age, as it says, "The beauty of young men is their strength, and the glory of old men is their gray hair" (Proverbs 20:29). Abraham merited his son through five things, as our Rabbis taught: the father merits a son through five things: through his [the father's] name, through his [the father's] good deeds, through his [the father's] wealth, through his [the father's] strength, and through his [the father's] wisdom. Similarly, Isaac [merited his son through five things], and similarly Jacob [merited his son through five things]. Similarly, Jacob merited Joseph [through these five things], who resembled him in appearance and in title, as it says, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6). [He resembled him] in wisdom, as it says, "Behold, he is the master of dreams" (Genesis 37:19). He had beauty, appearance, and wisdom. And in Isaac's case, it is written, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with wisdom. And just as Joseph stood up to his brothers in strength, so did Isaac stand up in strength against all the men of Gerar. Just as Joseph was wealthy, so was Isaac wealthy, as it says, "And the man became great and went forward and became very great" (Genesis 26:13). The verse (Genesis 26:8) explains [the word] "wisdom" as meaning "the greatness of his children." From where do we learn that Isaac was handsome like Joseph? It is written about Joseph, "And Joseph was handsome in form and appearance," and when he went to his brothers, what did they say? "Behold, the master of dreams is coming!" (Genesis 37:19). And it is said about Isaac, "Who is this man?" (Genesis 24:65). What is the meaning of "this man" in reference to Joseph? That he was handsome and had wisdom. Likewise, Isaac was also built with strength, as it says, We know this from the fact that he dug many wells, as it says, "Isaac dug again the wells of water" (Genesis 26:18), and "Isaac's servants dug in the valley" (Genesis 26:19), and "they dug another well" (Genesis 26:21). He had strength in his hands. From where do we know that he was wealthy? It says, "The man became great, and he grew richer and richer until he was very wealthy" (Genesis 26:13). And from where do we know that he lived to a ripe old age of 180 years? It says, "And Isaac lived one hundred and eighty years" (Genesis 35:28). Abraham was the son of Terah, and Isaac was the son of Abraham. Why does the Torah mention this? Because God said to Isaac, "You have merited these five things, so I will add another five years to your life, like your father Abraham." That is why it says, "Look upon your servants" (Psalms 119:16). Anyone who has merit will receive these five things, and anyone who does not have merit will receive five calamities in return. And who was this? Joab, as it is said: "Let Joab and his descendants be perpetually guilty of their bloodshed. May they be afflicted with leprosy, jaundice, and starvation." (2 Samuel 3:29) Leprosy corresponds to strength; one who has leprosy has no strength. Jaundice corresponds to beauty; even if someone is young and jaundiced, there is no beauty in them. Starvation corresponds to wealth, as it says, "Come, eat my food and drink the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways and you will live" (Proverbs 9:5-6). One who is starving has no leisure to engage in Torah study. Falling by the sword corresponds to the five aspects of praise. These are five calamities corresponding to five aspects of praise. One who does not merit praise inherits these five kinds of calamities, like Joab. But one who does merit praise receives them like Isaac, as it is said, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old" (Genesis 27:1), and David cries out, "May your children be like your ancestors" (Psalms 45:17). Therefore, it says, "And it came to pass, when Isaac was old."

[3] Another interpretation: "And there will be an end..." Like Scriptures say: "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds" (Jeremiah 30:17). The measures of God are not like the measures of flesh and blood, for He can strike with a sword and heal with a sword. He is able to heal Israel in the very thing in which they sinned. For example, when they sinned with a cloud, it is written, "He has covered Himself with a cloud" (Lamentations 3:44), and they were struck with a cloud, as it is written, "Behold, he shall come up like clouds" (Jeremiah 4:13), and they were healed with a cloud, as it is written, "Who are these that fly as a cloud?" (Isaiah 60:8). Similarly, it is written, "And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of mount Zion, and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day" (Isaiah 4:5). When they sinned with a thick darkness, it is written, "And darkness shall cover the earth" (Isaiah 60:2), and they were struck with darkness, as it is written, "He has made my skin black and my bones to shake" (Lamentations 3:4), and they were healed with darkness, as it is written, "Who are these that fly as a cloud?" (Isaiah 60:8). When they sinned with justice, it is written, "They judge not the cause, the cause of the fatherless" (Jeremiah 5:28), and they were struck with justice, as it is written, "He will speak judgment to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:1), and they were healed with justice, as it is written, "Zion shall be redeemed with judgment" (Isaiah 1:27). They were struck in dreams, "as a dream when one awakens" (Psalms 73:20), and they were healed in dreams, "Your old men shall dream dreams" (Joel 3:1). Similarly, Joseph was not sold except for the sake of dreams, as it is written, "Behold, this dreamer comes" (Genesis 37:19), and he was healed in a dream, as it is written, "And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed" (Genesis 41:1), "For I will restore health to you, and I will heal you of your wounds" (Jeremiah 30:17).

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac, and she fell from upon the camel” (Genesis 24:64). “Rebecca lifted her eyes, she saw Isaac” – Rav Huna said: She saw that his hand was outstretched in prayer. She said: ‘He is certainly a great man,’ and that is why she inquired about him. (See the next verse.) “She fell [vatipol] from upon the camel” – she tilted herself downward, (It does not mean that she actually fell to the ground.) just as it says: “When he stumbles [yipol], he will not fall” (Psalms 37:24). (The verse shows that yipol does not necessarily mean to fall.) “She said to the servant: Who is that man who is walking in the field toward us? The servant said: He is my master. She took the veil, and covered herself” (Genesis 24:65). “She said to the servant: [Who is that [halazeh] man]” – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: She saw that he was attractive and was overwhelmed before him, just as it says: “Behold, here comes that [halazeh] dreamer” (Genesis 37:19). (Halazeh is used in reference to Joseph, who was very attractive (see Genesis 39:6). The same was true of Isaac.) The Rabbis said: [Halazeh means:] He and his accompanying angel; halazeh [as an abbreviation for] that different one [alon zeh]. (Rebecca saw that the individual accompanying Isaac was no ordinary man.) “The servant said: He is my master. [She took the veil, and covered herself]” – there are two people who covered themselves with a veil, and they both bore twins: Rebecca and Tamar. Rebecca – “she took the veil”; Tamar – “she covered herself with a veil, and she wrapped herself” (Genesis 38:14). “The servant related to Isaac all the matters that he had done” (Genesis 24:66). “The servant related to Isaac [all the matters]” – Rabbi Eliezer said: The general statements of the Torah (Such as here, where the Torah makes the general statement that Eliezer related “all the matters,” but does not specify what they were.) are more common than its detailed statements, as, if it had desired to write it [the details of what had transpired], it would have written two or three [more] columns. The Rabbis say: He revealed to him the matters that involved praise [for God], [such as] that the path was miraculously shortened for him.

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

Thus has R. Tanhuma interpreted (Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD < AND HIS EYES WERE TOO WEAK TO SEE >. You find that there are twenty generations from Adam to Abraham, and there is no < mention of > old age written about < any of > them except Abraham, as stated (in Gen. 24:1): NOW ABRAHAM WAS OLD. (For parallel accounts, see above, 5:4.) Isaac arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 27:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS, THAT WHEN ISAAC WAS OLD. Jacob arose, < and > it is also written (in Gen. 48:10): NOW ISRAEL'S EYES WERE DIM WITH AGE. This text is related (to Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. Now GLORY can only be old age and gray hair, as stated (in Prov. 20:29): THE BEAUTY OF THE YOUNG IS THEIR STRENGTH; BUT THE GLORY OF THE OLD IS GRAY HAIR. Ergo (in Ps. 90:16): AND YOUR GLORY ON BEHALF OF THEIR CHILDREN. < These words mean > that Abraham endowed Isaac with five things. Thus have our masters taught (in 'Eduy. 2:9): A FATHER ENDOWS HIS SON WITH FIVE THINGS: WITH BEAUTY, WITH STRENGTH, WITH WEALTH, WITH WISDOM, AND WITH < LENGTH OF > YEARS. How is it shown about BEAUTY? In that Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. It is written of Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS WELL BUILT. Also, when he went to his brothers, they said (in Gen. 37:19): HERE COMES THIS (hallazeh) DREAMER. It is also said of Isaac (in Gen. 24:65): WHO IS THIS (hallazeh) MAN < WALKING IN THE FIELD TO MEET US >? Thus Isaac was as handsome as Joseph. How is it shown that Isaac was mighty in STRENGTH? Look at how many wells he dug! Thus it is stated (in Gen. 26:18-22): THEN ISAAC REDUG < THE WELLS OF WATER >…. AND ISAAC'S SERVANTS DUG…. AND THEY DUG ANOTHER WELL…. THEN HE MOVED FROM THERE AND DUG < ANOTHER WELL >…. Look at the power which he had! Where is it shown about WEALTH? Where it is stated (in Gen. 26:13): AND THE MAN GREW < RICHER AND RICHER >…. It also says (in vs. 14): AND HE POSSESSED FLOCKS < AND HERDS >…. Where is it shown about WISDOM? Where he said to his father (in Gen. 22:7 at the time of his being bound): HERE ARE THE FIRE AND THE WOOD…. [How is it shown] about < LENGTH OF > YEARS? In that he was one hundred and eighty years old < when he died >, while Abraham was < only > one hundred and seventy-five. On account of these five things {through which he had attained merit}, five years more than his father's were added to him. It is therefore stated (in Ps. 90:16): LET YOUR WORK BE WORTHY FOR YOUR SERVANTS…. Anyone who has merit is meritorious in these five things, and anyone who does not have merit is not meritorious and receives five retributions that correspond to them. (See yQid. 1:7 (61a).) And who is this anyone? This is Joab, of whom it is stated (in II Sam. 3:29): MAY IT (Abner's blood) FALL UPON THE HEAD OF JOB AND HIS SON; (Masoretic Text: ALL HIS FATHER’S HOUSE.) [MAY THE HOUSE OF JOAB NEVER LACK ONE WITH A DISCHARGE, A LEPER, A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE, ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD, AND ONE LACKING BREAD]. ONE WITH A DISCHARGE corresponds to STRENGTH. In the case of one who has a discharge, there is no one weaker than he. A LEPER corresponds to BEAUTY. In the case of one who is a leper, even a young < leper >, there is no one more ugly than he. A MALE WHO HANDLES THE SPINDLE corresponds to WEALTH; for he [is one] {like a poor woman is one} who, if not spinning flax, has nothing of which to eat. ONE LACKING BREAD corresponds to WISDOM, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where Wisdom says): COME AND EAT OF MY BREAD. And ONE WHO FALLS BY THE SWORD corresponds to < LENGTH OF > YEARS. The one who sins is afflicted by them, but the one who is meritorious receives, as did Isaac. David also gave praise (in Ps. 45:17 [16]): INSTEAD OF YOUR PARENTS THERE WILL BE YOUR CHILDREN.

(Gen. 37:19:) SO THEY SAID TO ONE ANOTHER. Who were they? Simon and Levi.

(Gen. 37:19-20:) HERE COMES THIS DREAMER. SO COME NOW, AND LET US KILL HIM…. < AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >. R. Isaac said: This Scripture cries out for exposition. Who said (in vs. 20): AND WE SHALL SEE < WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >? Actually they had said (at the beginning of the verse): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:20, explains that the brothers could not have said, AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. Since they were about to slay him, his dreams would have been meaningless.) So the Holy Spirit says: Let us observe them. They said (ibid.): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM; and he said (in vs. 7): NOW LOOK, YOUR SHEAVES GATHERED AROUND. Now let us see whose < sheaf > stands up, yours or mine.

This they shall give (Exod. 30:12). Observe that Israel was so beloved that even their sins brought them considerable benefit. If their sins could do that, how much more so would their meritorious deeds. You find that when Jacob sent Joseph to his brethren, they watched him approach and said to one another: Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, therefore, and let us slay him (Gen. 37:19–20). They hurled him into the pit and said: Let us eat and drink, and then we will kill him. After eating and drinking, they were about to say grace when Judah said to them: We are planning to take a life, yet now we would bless God. If we should do this, we would be blaspheming against God and not blessing Him. Because of this Scripture says: And the covetous vaunteth himself, though he condemn the Lord (Ps. 10:3). Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and let not our hand be upon him (Gen. 37:27). (And they all agreed.)

And it was, therefore, brought about by Heaven that the first to open his sack and find the money was Levi, as explained by Rashi. For he was the first who said to his brother Shimon (Ibid. 37:19-20): "Behold this dreamer of dreams is coming, and now, let us go and slay him."

הלזה, the additional letter ל in this word indicates that the person it refers to, though identifiable, is still a considerable distance away, in fact may not yet be positively identified beyond any doubt. We have the same construction in Genesis 37,19 where the brothers refer to the unexpected appearance of Joseph in the distance. When the person referred to as זה is close by, such as when Esther entertained the King and Haman, she pointed to Haman as המן הרע הזה, “this wicked Haman!” (Esther 7,6)

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

Youth and beauty, innocence and exuberance can be perilous if unrestrained. Joseph’s brothers felt this acutely, and it angered and frightened them: “They saw him [Joseph] from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, ‘Behold, the baal ĥalomot (dreamer) approaches!’” (Genesis 37:18–19). “They said: ‘This one will lead them all to the Baal idolatry’” (Genesis Rabbah 84:14).

This midrashic motif that Simeon headed the plot to kill Joseph continues with a number of details. Simeon wanted to kill; Simeon alone was charged with throwing Joseph into the pit. (BR 84:16 and 99:7; Tan. B. VaYeshev 13 (where Simeon was also charged with hurling down stones into the pit after Joseph); Tan. VaYeshev 9, Targum Yerushalmi Genesis 37:19. Philo also placed blame squarely on Simeon in De Josepho 30; some sources have Levi as an accomplice (Midrash Mishlei 1:12).) He threatened the Midianites with death for drawing Joseph out of the pit and keeping him alive. (Sefer Ha-Yashar, VaYeshev, 67b–68a. In this midrashic retelling of the sale of Joseph, passing Midianites, thirsty for water, approached the pit and subsequently saw Joseph languishing. They drew him out. Brandishing his sword, Simeon threatened them all with death. The Midianites saved themselves by appealing to the other brothers with an offer to buy Joseph.) And, when Issachar advised tearing Joseph’s ketonet pasim, the special colorful garment lovingly given him by Jacob, and dipping it in blood to trick their father into thinking that Joseph had been torn apart by a wild animal, Simeon did not want to relinquish the cloak. This refusal to cooperate stemmed from Simeon’s anger toward his brothers for not agreeing to kill Joseph. (This detail was furnished by the pseudepigraphal Testament of Zebulun 4.)

One man said to another, Here comes the dreamer.

And Shimeon and Levi, who were brothers in counsel, said each man to his brother, Behold, this master of dreams cometh.

ועתה לכו ונהרגהו, "Come now let us kill him!" They planned to kill him before he had a chance to actually reach them; they went towards him. This is why the Torah emphasises the word ועתה. They were so upset emotionally that they could not even contain their anger until he would reach them. What the brothers did is best described in Baba Kama 26 where the Talmud rules that when ten people kill one person simultaneously they cannot be held responsible by a human court. The brothers' main concern was to escape a trial by a human court.

ונשליכהו באחד הבורות, "and let us throw him into one of the pits." When the brothers mentioned how they would explain Joseph's disappearance, i.e. ואמרנו, they meant that as a rule anyone found in one of these pits would be consumed by a variety of rodents which abound in them. They would then be telling the truth when they described him as having fallen victim to wild beasts. By not saying the rodents had killed him they would refrain from uttering an outright lie.

Naturally, we must explore by whose authority the brothers imagined that they were entitled to kill a human being, and such a righteous human being at that? Even allowing for the fact that the manner in which they planned to kill Joseph would not have made them liable to a human tribunal, how did they expect to escape retribution at the hands of G'd?

Perhaps the brothers applied to Joseph the laws pertaining to עד זומם, someone who testifies to a crime he did not really see and who thereby intended to have the accused convicted of the death penalty. In such a situation the Torah demands that the עד זומם himself will be executed by the same death penalty he intended for his victim. Joseph had accused his brothers of eating אבר מן החי, tissue from a living animal. A fitting penalty would be for Joseph himself to be consumed by wild animals before he was dead. Joseph had also claimed that the brothers engaged in sex with partners forbidden to them. All these accusations, if true, carry the death penalty when committed by Gentiles. Moreover, a Gentile may be convicted by the testimony of a single witness without corroboration and without the victim having been warned of the consequences of his behaviour. Even next of kin may testify against the accused (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9). Accordingly, the brothers applied to Joseph the law of an עד זומם thus exonerating themselves in the eyes of heaven. However, if so, they would not be considered innocent before a human tribunal because they had no הזמה, evidence of an alibi placing the witness Joseph in a different location at the time that he claimed that the brothers had committed the crimes he had accused them of. This is why they had to resort to the ruse of ganging up on him simultaneously. No human court could then prove that either one of them had administered a lethal blow. They felt quite at ease vis-a-vis heaven, being convinced that Joseph wanted to kill them. All of these considerations helped G'd carry out what He had planned without interfering with the freedom of will of the brothers or of Joseph. Perhaps the brothers even alluded to the fact that they would eventually repent what they were about to do and this is why they said ועתה, i.e. "for now this is what we are going to do." Bereshit Rabbah 21,6 claims that whenever the expression ועתה is used it refers to repentance.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, "and we shall see what becomes of his dreams." They were at pains to prove that his dreams contained false information, or that the dreams were merely reflections of what he had been thinking by day. If they would kill him now this would prove that the dreams only reflected Joseph's own aspirations.

ועתה לכו, the word לכו in this context is an exhortation to act without delay, as we explained on 28,2. [there it referred to the word קום, Ed.]

AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. This is a derisive metaphor: “We shall see after his death if we shall prostrate ourselves before him.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that they said, “Now we shall see what will become of his dreams, for if he shall be rescued from our hands he will surely reign over us.” But our Rabbis said: (84:13.) “It is the Ruach Hakodesh (See Seder Toldoth, Note 90.) that says, We shall see what will become of his dreams, (The intent is to say that it is the Ruach Hakodesh which completes the sentence, and not Joseph’s brothers.) as if to say; ‘We shall see whose words shall stand, Mine or theirs.’” (Jeremiah 44:28.)

לכו ונהרגהו, the introduction לכו is an invitation for other people to participate in a planned undertaking. We have a similar example in verse 27 of our chapter when the brothers sell Joseph and Yehudah introduces the plan with the words לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” Another similar example is found in Exodus 1,10 when Pharaoh invites his people to outsmart the Israelites with the words הבה נתחכמה לו. In that verse the word הבה is used as such an invitation. Compare also Deuteronomy 11,26, where the word ראה is used in the same manner, except that it does not involve active participation by those addressed

ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS — R. Isaac said, this verse calls for a homiletic explanation. The Holy Spirit said this latter part of the text. They say “let us slay him”, and Scripture (i.e. the Holy Spirit) breaks in upon their words concluding them by saying, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”: we shall see whose words will be fulfilled — yours or mine. For it is impossible that they should have said, “and we shall see what will become of his dreams”, for as soon as they would kill him his dreams would be of no effect (Tanchuma Yashan 1:9:13).

ועתה לכו, make up your minds quickly to kill him.

אמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו, so that Jacob will not have a chance of becoming angry at us and first be cursing us.

ונראה מה יהיו חלומותיו, the dreams of which he told us that they foreshadow his rise to greatness and that he would rule over us. Then we will be witness to the fact that all these dreams will dissolve into nothingness and that they are nothing but lies.

Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the nearby pits, and we will say: A wild beast devoured him. Since wild animals are commonly found in uninhabited areas, if someone inquires about the fate of Joseph, we will claim that his death was caused by a predatory animal in the area. And we shall see what will become of his dreams.

“Come now, let us kill him” [37:20]. When Joseph was protected from the vicious dogs, his brothers said: we will kill him and throw him into a pit. We will say that a wild animal ate him. The Holy One said here. “We shall see what comes of his dreams” [37:20]. That is to say, his dreams show that you will not be able to do anything to him. He will be a king over you. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:20.)

Rabbi Shimeon began with the verse: "and he took Shimeon from them, and bound him in front of them" (Genesis 42:24). And what did Yosef see that he showed partiality in Shimeon more than the brothers? Rather, Yosef said: in every place Shimeon (and Levi) are, there is an opening for strict judgment, and at that moment when I went from my father to my brothers, Shimeon opened the strict judgment [against me], as it is written "a man said to his brother here comes that dreamer, come now etc" (Genesis 37:19-20), and before, in Shechem, "and the sons of Yaakov, Shimeon and Levi, each man took" (Genesis 34:25) - all was in strict judgment. It is better to select this one, and not to stir up fights among all the tribes.

[3] Another interpretation: "Rejoicing in His inhabited world." These are the tribes who sought to nullify something from the Torah. When Joseph saw the dream and said, "And behold, the sun, and the moon" (Genesis 37:9), they said to him, "Shall you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8). Once he left, they said to each other, "Come, let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20), etc. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them, "You seek to abolish something from the Torah and said, 'Let us be killed for it,' let us see who will uphold his words. He only did it when Joseph was sold as a slave and became a ruler, as it is said, 'And Joseph was the ruler, etc.' And Joseph's brothers came, etc. (Genesis 42:6). He began to accuse them of being spies (Genesis 42:9), they said to him, 'No, my lord, your servants have come, etc.' (Genesis 42:10-11), he said to them, 'No, you are thieves who sell your siblings as slaves. Send one of you etc.' (Genesis 42:16). And in the end, when the cup was found in Benjamin's hand, he began to say, 'Who stole the cup? Benjamin, son of a thief mother, for Rachel stole, etc.' (Genesis 31:19). 'Behold, you are the thief,' they began to say to him, 'What shall we say to my lord?' (Genesis 44:16) 'About Joseph,' he replied, 'What shall we speak?' (Genesis 44:16) 'and how shall we justify ourselves?'(Genesis 44:16) 'but] God has found [a way to exact punishment for] the [former] sin of your servants.'(Genesis 44:16) God said to them, 'What could you have abolished one thing for which you said, "Let us be killed for it?" Yet you seek to make yourselves slaves and He does not want that, as it is said, "Far be it from me to do so," etc.' (Genesis 44:17). "He who mocks them [God's words], will play the fool [or 'will be played for a fool'] in his own land [or 'in his own country']." [refer: Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:11]

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

“A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field. The man asked him, saying: What do you seek? He said: I seek my brothers. Please tell me where they are herding. The man said: They traveled from here, for I heard them saying: We shall go to Dotan. Joseph went after his brothers, and he found them in Dotan” (Genesis 37:15–17). “A man found him, and behold, he was wandering in the field” – Rabbi Yannai said: Three angels came to his assistance: “A man found him”; “the man asked him”; “the man said.” “They traveled from here” – from the attributes of the Omnipresent. (They abandoned the traits of mercy, grace, kindness, and the like.) “They saw him from afar, and before he approached them, they conspired against him to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). “They saw him from afar” – they said: Come let us sic the dogs on him. “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer is coming” (Genesis 37:19). “Now let us go and kill him and cast him into one of the pits, and we will say: A savage beast devoured him; and we will see what will become of his dreams” (Genesis 37:20). “They said one to another: Behold, that dreamer [baal haḥalomot]” – The Rabbis said: Here he is coming, bearing his dreams. Rabbi Levi said: This one is destined to mislead them to follow the Baal. (Joseph’s descendant Yerovam will incite them to engage in idol worship.) “Now let us go and kill him” – the Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You say: “And we will see” and I say: We will see – now we will see “whose word will stand” (Jeremiah 44:28), mine or yours.’

“If you are sincere, one of your brothers will be incarcerated in the place of your custody and you, go bring grain for the hunger of your houses” (Genesis 42:19). “And bring your youngest brother to me and your statements will be verified, and you will not die. They did so” (Genesis 42:20). “They said one to another: But we are guilty in our brother’s regard, that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he pleaded with us and we did not heed; that is why this anguish has befallen us” (Genesis 42:21). “If you are sincere…and [bring] your youngest brother…They said one to another: But [aval] we are guilty” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: It is a southern dialect: Aval – truthfully. “That we saw the anguish of his soul, when he pleaded with us” – Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan bar She’ila: Is it possible that Joseph, at seventeen years old, would see his brothers selling him, and be silent? Rather, it teaches that he prostrated himself before the feet of each and every one so that they would be filled with mercy for him, but they were not filled. “Reuben responded to them, saying: Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the child, and you did not heed? And, indeed, here is a reckoning for his blood” (Genesis 42:22). “Reuben responded to them, saying…” – did I not say this to you? “Did I not speak to you, saying: Do not sin against the child,” but this is what you said: “Now let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). “And, indeed [vegam], here is a reckoning for his blood” – his blood and the blood of the elder. (Instead of “his blood vedamo],” it says “indeed…his blood [vegam damo].” The word vegam comes to include the blood of his father.) “They did not know that Joseph understood, as the interpreter was between them” (Genesis 42:23). “They did not know that Joseph understood, as the interpreter” – this was Manasseh. “He turned from them and wept, and he returned to them; he spoke to them, and took Simeon from them, and incarcerated him before their eyes” (Genesis 42:24). “He turned from them” – Rabbi Ḥagai said in the name of Rabbi Yitzḥak: he incarcerated him before their eyes. When they departed, he fed him, gave him to drink, bathed him, and anointed him.

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

(Gen. 37:19-20:) HERE COMES THIS DREAMER. SO COME NOW, AND LET US KILL HIM…. < AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >. R. Isaac said: This Scripture cries out for exposition. Who said (in vs. 20): AND WE SHALL SEE < WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS >? Actually they had said (at the beginning of the verse): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM. (Rashi, on Gen. 37:20, explains that the brothers could not have said, AND WE SHALL SEE WHAT WILL BECOME OF HIS DREAMS. Since they were about to slay him, his dreams would have been meaningless.) So the Holy Spirit says: Let us observe them. They said (ibid.): COME, AND LET US KILL HIM; and he said (in vs. 7): NOW LOOK, YOUR SHEAVES GATHERED AROUND. Now let us see whose < sheaf > stands up, yours or mine.

His master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph (Gen. 38:7). Scripture states elsewhere in allusion to this verse: Death and life are in the power of the tongue; and they that indulge it shall eat the fruit thereof (Prov. 18:21). R. Hiyya the son of Abba declared: If a man should eat from a basket of figs without offering a blessing, death is in the power of the tongue, but if he should pronounce the blessing and then eat it, life is in the power of the tongue. All of the trials that befell Joseph occurred because of the evil he spoke against his brothers, as it is said: And Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:20).

(Ibid. 17): "For I heard them [the brothers] saying: 'Let us go to Dothan [nelchah dotainah],' which Rashi interprets: 'to seek against you nichlei datoth [legal devices (suggested by 'nelchah dothainah')] to kill you with." The explanation: It was decided by them that Joseph was a man of lashon hara, who provoked their father to hate them. And who knows how much contention he would stir up among them? They, therefore, sought some pretext to rid themselves of him in a way which would not make them "murderers" legally. As far as his being killed indirectly through them, this did not concern them. And as to their saying (Ibid. 60): "Let us go and kill him," this was meant in the same indirect sense. As stated in the well known Gemara, Makkoth 23a): "If one speaks lashon hara, he is fit to be cast to the dogs, it being written (Shemoth 23:1): 'You shall not bear a false report,' preceded by (Ibid. 22:39): 'To the dog shall you cast it.'" And we find in the Gemara (Bava Kamma 24b): "If one sicked a dog against someone, he is not guilty [of murder]." And even though by the law of Heaven, he is certainly liable for "indirection," too, they thought that in this instance they would not be liable by the law of Heaven because Joseph was a man of lashon hara and contention.

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

It is a language of action! Based on Genesis 37:20 “Let us go and kill them.” And [the verse continues to explain that] nariah is similar to teruah, to blow a horn.

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

Yosef ’s father and brothers seem to view his political antics with a certain amount of disdain. His actions appear to grate against the fundamental spirit of Yaakov and his family. Thus, the brothers plot against Yosef because of his dreams of lording over his family and not because of the potentially more damaging tale bearing (Bereshit 37:19–20). More than anything else then, it is Yosef ’s political behavior that eventually brings about his exile.

They saw him from afar, and before he came close to them they conspired to kill him. They said to one another, “Here comes that dreamer! Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits, and we can say, ‘A savage beast devoured him.’ We shall see what comes of his dreams.” Genesis 37:18–20

Now, come let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits; and we will say that a wild beast devoured him. Then we will see what will become [be the end] of his dreams.

And now come let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits and say that an evil beast hath devoured him; and we shall see what will be the interpretation of his dreams.

The Midrash (Ruth Rabba 5:6) states that if Reuven had known Hashem would record his actions, "And Reuven heard it, and delivered him out of their hand" (Genesis 37:21), he would have carried Yosef on his shoulder to his father. This highlights that the deeds of our forefathers were imbued with Torah and intertwined with the future merits of their descendants. The verse, “For I have singled him out, that he may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of Hashem” (Bereishit 18:19), means Avraham connected his actions to his descendants, ensuring future benefits from his righteousness. This is why Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov are called “Avos” (forefathers). Their actions were foundational and recorded in the Torah, guiding Bnei Yisrael to understand and correct their ways. The Midrash implies that had Reuven known his actions would teach future generations, it would have strengthened his resolve, and he would have carried Yosef back to their father. Therefore, each person should consider how their actions impact their descendants, helping them remain steadfast against wrongdoing.

“And Reuven heard and he saved him from their hands” (Bereishis 37:21). Reuven acted with true intent to perform a mitzvah. When he returned to the pit and found Yosef gone, he feared that his advice had led to Yosef’s demise. However, Hashem testified that Reuven's actions indeed saved Yosef from being killed, as without Reuven's intervention, the brothers would have killed him. This teaches us that when a person intends to do a mitzvah with true intent, even if it seems unsuccessful, one can be assured that something positive comes from it.

"And Reuben heard and saved him from their hands, etc." (Genesis Rabbah, Parasha 44) Where was Rabbi Yossi? He said, 'Every day each one of them used to serve his father, and that day of Reuben was [when he served], etc.' Rabbi Yossi interpreted 'וישמע' (and he heard) in the sense of hearing, as it literally means, while Rabbi Nechemia and the Sages interpreted it in the sense of understandingHowever, there is cause for wonder: when did Reuben serve his father on that particular day? He comes immediately [after the incident with Joseph], and since each of them served his father every day, why did Jacob need to send Joseph to them? He could have waited a little until one of them came to serve him, and then he could inform Joseph about the well-being of his brothers and the welfare of the flock.It can be explained that initially, his brothers intended to devise a plot and set a trap for him. Before this incident, they were grazing the cattle near their father, and Joseph was also shepherding with them, as it is mentioned that he was shepherding his brothers among the flock. When they became jealous of him, they went to a distant place, hoping that he might come there, and they could take revenge on him. This is also evident from their overall scheme: on that particular day, they intentionally delayed Reuben from going to his father to serve him so that their father would send Joseph. They gave Reuben a pretext, informing him that their intention was to travel to Dotan, and they asked him to delay his journey to help them prepare for their departure. Reuben agreed, and afterwards, he would go to his father." "And this means, 'Behold, I have heard people saying, 'Let's go to Dotan.'" Therefore, Jacob was distressed because none of them came that day as was customary. For this reason, he sent Joseph, fearing that the people of Shechem might gather against them due to what had happened. This is indicated by the phrase, 'Are not your brothers pasturing in Shechem? Come, and I will send you to them,' where Jacob said to him, 'Here I am.' Like a son who fears his father, he said to him, 'Please go and see,' meaning, 'See with your own eyes.' He did not learn it from the Maggid [angelic messenger], and he immediately returned to instruct him about his great distress. He sent him, meaning that he provided him with a guide until the depth of Hebron, and from there, he let him go. "And a man found him wandering," meaning that three angels encountered him. At first glance, it seems that they did not help him at all, and they did not make any effort to save him. On the contrary, if they had not met him, he would have returned to his father when he realized he was lost. Although he might not have returned, it would have been better for him to remain lost than to fall into the hands of his enemies who wanted to kill him. God, however, saved him from evil situations just as the angels saved him from the snakes. Nevertheless, all of this was part of the advice of a good companion, the buried one in Hebron. When he came to his brothers, Reuben was then involved in the household matters to serve his father for the day. He went to his father to serve him every day. He found out about their intentions from the words of his brothers, who wanted to kill Joseph. This is the meaning of 'And Reuben heard and saved him from their hands. And behold, it does not say here, 'And his brothers heard,' as it is stated about Judah. It is possible that Judah was their king, and they were obligated to listen to him by force. Another possibility is that since it says, 'And they took him and cast him,' with 'they took him' written in the singular form, it indicates that it was Simeon, as the sages state. Therefore, when they heard the matter from Reuben, they immediately arose and cast him into the pit. At that moment, after casting him into the pit, Reuben had not yet gone to his father, as he was occupied with the household matters before leaving. Later, he returned to the pit in the wilderness, took Joseph, and intended to return him to his father. This is what is meant by 'And Reuben returned to the pit.' Where was Rabbi Joshua saying that all the troubles of the household were thrown upon him? Once he turned away, he went to the pit. According to this interpretation, his statement, 'The boy is gone, and where can I go?' is more understandable. He meant that his intention was to bring the boy back to his father when he returned. Now, since the boy is gone, he does not want to go to his father, even though it is his daily task. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer says that he was busy with fasting and mourning when he turned away and went to the pit. This explains his statement, 'And they sat down to eat bread, and Reuben did not sit with them to eat.' One can inquire about the deed that the tribes of Jacob did, allowing themselves to shed innocent blood and sell him. And behold, some say that their intention was related to their suspicions that, God forbid, they might be separated from their elevated status of holiness, and Joseph would become the main figure in place of their father. They feared that they would become subordinate to him. They saw it similar to the case of Ishmael and Esau, as they observed that their father loved him more than all his brothers. Jacob trusted him, imparted knowledge to him, and taught him everything he learned. Joseph, too, had the same perception. He saw himself as the favorite, and his conduct was pious and esteemed in their eyes. As it is written, 'And Joseph brought evil reports of them to their father,' meaning that he reported that they were eating limbs from a living animal while it was still writhing. He was strict about this. He also claimed that they were gazing at the local girls, implying that they were engaging in inappropriate relationships, which he considered permissible. Furthermore, he mentioned that they called his brothers the sons of the maidservants, indicating a degree of disparagement towards them. He was strict about this as well. Regarding these three matters, the Scripture hints in the verse, 'Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, for he was a son of his old age,' meaning that he kept them in line with matters related to the flock. He was a young man who looked after the affairs of the youth, meticulously attending to their conduct. He would inform his brothers about the deeds of the youth. He referred to his father's wives as 'your father's wives,' unlike his brothers who referred to them as 'the maidservants of your father.' Therefore, when they observed him engaging in these actions of separation, strictness, and jealousy, they thought he intended to cause harm and displace them from their superior position. His dreams further strengthened this perception. Hence, they said it was permissible to pursue him and remove him from their midst."

וישמע ראובן ויצילהו מידם, “when Reuven heard this he saved him from them. G-d decided at that moment that because it was Reuven who had made the first move to save Joseph, the cities of refuge in Israel later on would begin with those in the territory allocated to the tribe of Reuven. (Bereshit Rabbah 84,15) This is also hinted at in Deuteronomy 4,43: את בצר במישור לראובני, “Bezer in the tableland to the members of the tribe of Reuven.”

LET US NOT TAKE HIS LIFE. Our verse is similar to (Our verse literally reads: lo nakkennu nefesh (let us not take his life) which literally means, let us not strike him life. I.E. holds that this is short for, let us not strike him (lo nakkennu) a mortal blow (makkat nefesh).) but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man (Ex. 33:11), the meaning of which is: but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, did the ministry (This has to be added to the text.) of a young man. The aforementioned verse must be so understood because Joshua was not at that time a young man. (Thus a young man is short for: did the service of a young man.) Similarly our verse should be read as if written: let us not strike him a mortal blow thus taking his life.

ויצילהו מידם. "He saved him from harm at their hands. This action was applauded by the Torah as man is a free creature possessing freedom of choice and able to kill people who are not guilty or have not been convicted, as distinct from wild beasts which do not kill humans unless the latter are guilty of death in the eyes of G'd. The words ויצילהו מידם mean that he saved them from the evil consequences of carrying out their freedom of choice to kill. By doing what he did Reuben nullified the brothers' statement: "we shall see what happens to his dreams."

לא נכנו נפש. "Let us not kill him." What Reuben meant was "let us not kill him outright ourselves but only cause his death indirectly." When he said later: "do not shed blood, throw him into the pit," this was his argument to his brothers. He only pretended to agree that Joseph's death should be caused because he could think of no other way of saving Joseph's life and restoring him to his father. He was quite certain in his own mind that no wild beast would harm Joseph, or any other of Jacob's sons for that matter. He himself would also not allow Joseph to remain in the pit long enough to die of hunger. Proof of Reubens' intention is that the Torah reports that he returned to the pit shortly after the brothers had sold Joseph in his absence. He had planned to take Joseph out of the pit.

לא נכנו נפש, “let us not commit murder. Reuven found it impossible to agree with the advice, i.e. the solution proposed by his brothers. He intended to save Joseph. Had he said immediately: “we will not kill him,” he would have given away his intention to save Joseph and the fact that he had pity on him. He therefore added the word נפש to convince his brothers that his strategy was not aimed at saving Joseph’s fate but at saving his brothers from committing an unpardonable sin The prohibition of murdering someone in cold blood is absolute and knows of no exceptions. This is why he added אל תשפכו דם, “do not spill blood.” Had he been concerned only with Joseph’s blood not being spilled he would have said אל תשפכו דמו, “do not spill his blood.” He implied that he shared the brothers’ evaluation of Joseph’s guilt and hated him just as they hated him, but that he was concerned with the basic prohibition of shedding the blood of a human being, נפש.

וישמע...לא נכנו נפש, killing.

ויצילהו מידם, he saved his life, no more.

לא נכנו נפש — supply the word מכת so that the meaning will be “Let us not smite him with a smiting of his life” — it means killing.

Reubens Verhältnis zu den Brüdern, wie er in dieser Begebenheit auftritt, dürfte rätselhaft erscheinen. Er scheint nur zufällig bei ihnen zu sein, da er ja sich sehr bald wieder von ihnen entfernt haben muss, und bei der eigentlichen Entwicklung gar nicht gegenwärtig war. Ob er überhaupt als בכור an den gewöhnlichen Tagesbeschäftigungen nicht Teil zu nehmen hatte, ob er schon im allgemeinen von ihren Ansichten über Josef differierte und daher an den Absichten und Beratungen, die sie nach Sichem geführt, nicht teilnehmen wollte, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Wir werden noch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 30. wieder darauf zurückkommen. — לא נכנו נפש ist ganz positiv. Einen solchen Gedanken, wie ihr eben angeregt, werden wir nicht ausführen. Ich, als der ältere Bruder, leide das nicht. Indem V. 22 nochmals seine Rede eingeleitet wird, scheint es erst Diskussion gegeben zu haben, worauf er dann, um sie zu beschwichtigen, mit dem andern Vorschlag hervortrat.

ויצילהו מידם, by first of all preventing immediate action by the brothers, committing an act which would prove to be irrevocable. This would have been the kind of thing Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 1,15 that מעוות לא יוכל לתקן, “there are things so twisted that they are beyond repair.” He referred to matters from which sometimes the righteous person can also not be saved. One such example was the irreversible act of Reuven of having slept with Bilhah. Yaakov himself characterized it as פחז כמים, “hasty like water” (flowing downstream, something beyond recall).

A blow to the soul, which refers to killing. Otherwise, how does נכנו — the object of which is Yoseif — connect to the following word נפש? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is as if it said מכת נפש, [which is an adverbial phrase modifying נכנו]. (R. Meir Stern)

Reuben, the oldest son, heard, and delivered him from their hand, as he felt responsible for whatever was about to take place; and he said: Let us not smite him mortally; there is no need for us to kill him.

“Let us not take his life” [37:21]. When Reuben heard this, Reuben wanted to save him and said: “Let us not take his life.” That is to say, Reuben showed the brothers that he also hated him. Therefore, Reuben spoke wisely. It is not appropriate to kill any person, not even a stranger. Therefore, Reuben did not say, “Let us not take.” This means, we will not kill him. Rather, he said: “Let us not take his life.” How appropriate is it to take a life? Therefore, Reuben said: “Shed no blood” [37:22]. That is, shed no blood of any person. God will punish you. It is not that I love Joseph. Rather, I am concerned with your welfare, that you should not shed blood. Therefore, Reuben said: “shed no blood” and did not say, do not shed his blood. This means, do not shed his blood. That is to say, Reuben did not want to show the brothers that he loved Joseph, in the expectation that they would listen to his advice. Reuben thought: I am the oldest; my father will be angry with me that I did not save him. So writes Bahya. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:21.)

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

“Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hand and said: Let us not smite him mortally” (Genesis 37:21). “Reuben heard, and delivered him” – where had he been? (The fact that he heard implies that he was not there during the initial discussion and heard about it after the fact (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis: Rabbi Yosei said: Each one of them would serve his father on his day, and that day was Reuben’s day. Rabbi Neḥemya said: Reuben said: I am the firstborn, and the blame will be attributed only to me. The Rabbis say: Reuben said: He enumerates me with my brothers; shall I not rescue him? I was under the impression that I had been banished because of that incident, (The incident of Reuben and Bilha; see Genesis 35:22. ) and he enumerates me with my brothers, As it is stated: “And eleven stars prostrated themselves to me” (Genesis 37:9) – shall I not rescue him? The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘You were the first to engage in the saving of lives; as you live, they will designate cities of refuge first only within your boundaries.’ That is what is written: “Betzer in the wilderness…[for the Reubenites]” (Deuteronomy 4:43).

(Ib. b) R. Jochauan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai said: "Since the day the Holy One, praised be He! created the world there was no man who called the Holy One, praised be He! 'Lord' (Adon) until Abraham came and called him 'Lord,' for it is said (Gen. 15, 8.) And he said Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?" Rab said "Daniel also would not have been answered were it not for the sake of Abraham, for it is said (Dan. 9, 17.) And now listen, O our God! to the prayer of thy servant, for the sake of the Lord; — 'for Thy sake' he [Daniel] ought to have said? But [he prayed] for the sake of Abraham, who called you Lord." Again said R. Jochanan in the name of R. Simon b. Jochai: "Since the day when the Holy One, praised be He! created the world, there was no man who thanked the Holy One, praised be He! until Leah came and thanked Him, as it is said (Gen. 29, 35.) This lime will I thank the Lord." What is the meaning of being called Reuben? R. Elazar said: "Leah said, 'See the difference between my son and the son of my father-in-law (Esau); whereas my father-in-law's son sold his birthright to Jacob of his own accord, as it is written (Gen. 25, 33.) And he sold his right of first-horn unto Jacob, yet what happened? As it is written (Ib. 27, 41.) And Esau hated Jacob, and it is also written (Ib. ib. 36.) And he said, hath he been therefore named Jacob, because he hath supplanted me these two times; but my son, although it was against his will that Joseph took from him the birthright, as it is written (I Chr. 5, 1.) But when he defiled his father's bed was his birth-right given unto the sons of Joseph; yet he never envied him, for it is written (Gen. 37, 21.) And when Reuben heard it he delivered him out of their hands.'" Why was she named Ruth? R. Jochanan said "Be cause she merited that from her shall come forth David, who satisfied the Holy One, praised be He! with songs and praises." And whence do we derive that the name is the cause? R. Elazar said: "It is said (Ps. 46, 9.) Come, look at the deeds of the Lord, who hath made desolation on the earth. Do not read it Shamoth (desolation), but read Shemoth (names)."

R. Tanchum b. Chanilai said: "Why is the tribe of Reuben mentioned first among the cities of safety? Because he was the first to save Joseph from his brothers, as it is written (Gen. 37, 21) And when Reuben heard it, he delivered him out of their hand." R. Simlai lectured: "It is written (Deut. 4, 41) Then Moses separated three cities beyond the Jordan, toward the sunrise. The Holy One, praised be He! said to Moses: 'Thou hast caused the sun to shine toward the murderers (to save them from death)'." R. Simlai lectured: "What is the meaning of the verse (Ecc. 5, 9) He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance, will finally have income? He that loveth silver refers to Moses, our master, who, [although] having been aware that the three cities on the other side of the Jordan could not protect [the innocent murderer] until the other three cities were selected; nevertheless he selected them, saying: "A meritorious act which has come to my hand, I shall fulfil;' nor he that loveth abundance, i.e., who is fit to lecture before a crowd? He who possesses all the grain [of knowledge] like the Bible, Mishna, Halacha and Hagada." And this is what R. Elazar said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Ps. 106, 2) Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord? or make all His praise to be heard? This means, who is fit to express the mighty acts of the Lord? He who can make all His praise to be heard." The Rabbis, and according to others, Rabba b. Mari explained this passage thus: "He who loves the abundance [of scholars], possesses the fruit of knowledge"; whereupon the Rabbis fixed their eyes upon Raba b. Rabba who possessed such a quality. R. Ashi said: "He who likes to learn among a crowd of scholars possesses the fruit of their knowledge." And this is what R. Jose b. Chanina said: "What is the meaning of the passage (Jer. 50, 36) The sword is upon the boasters (badim) and they shall become fools? This means the sword may cut the necks of the scholars who study separately [without interchange of ideas] and not only this, but they become also foolish; for it is written here, V'no-alu, (and they become foolish) and there is another passage (Num. 12, 11) For that we have done foolishly, and not only this but they also commit a crime, as it is written (Ib.) And wherein we have sinned. Rabina said: "He who loves to study among a crowd [of students], will possess the grain of knowledge." And this is what Rabbi said: "I learned much from my teachers, more, however, from my colleagues, but from my disciples, I learned the most."

“Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your loaf in the vinegar. She sat beside the reapers and he handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over” (Ruth 2:14). “Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here.” Rabbi Yoḥanan interpreted this [verse] with six approaches. [According to one approach, this verse] is referring to David. “Come here [halom],” – draw near to kingship, as halom means nothing other than kingship, as it is written: “[King David came and he sat before the Lord and said: Who am I, my Lord God, and who is my household, that You have brought me to this point [halom]?” (II Samuel 7:18). “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Lord, do not rebuke me in Your wrath” (Psalms 6:2). (This verse was stated by David.) “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rav Huna said: Those six months that David was fleeing from Avshalom are not included in the tally, (Of the years of David’s reign.) as he would gain atonement with a female goat like a commoner. (A commoner brings a female goat as a sin-offering (Leviticus 4:27-28), whereas a king brings a male goat (Leviticus 4:22–23). Thus, Rav Huna is stating that during those six months David did not have the status of a king.) “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “Now I know that the Lord has redeemed His anointed” (Psalms 20:7). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – [David] eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Solomon. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship, as it is stated: “Solomon's provision for one day was thirty kor of fine flour, and sixty kor of meal” (I Kings 5:2). “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are his sullied actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as Rabbi Yoḥai bar Ḥanina said: An angel in the image of Solomon descended and sat on his throne, and Solomon would circle among the entrances of Israel (Seeking charity) and say: “I am Kohelet , I was king over Israel in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 1:12). What did one of them do? She gave him a bowl of grits and struck him on his head with a reed, and said to him: ‘Isn’t Solomon sitting on his throne, and [yet] you say: I am Solomon king of Israel?’ “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him. “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Hezekiah. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “Isaiah said: Let them take a cake of figs [and spread it on the rash and he will live]” (Isaiah 38:21). (The verse is stated regarding Hezekiah.) “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it says: “So said Hezekiah: A day of distress and chastisement” (Isaiah 37:3). “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He was exalted in the eyes of all nations thereafter” (II Chronicles 32:23). “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Menashe. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – that he sullied his actions like vinegar due to his evil actions. “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – the kingship was temporarily captured [notzeda] from him, as it is written: “The Lord spoke to Menashe and his people, but they would not pay heed. The Lord brought the officers of the army of the king of Assyria against them, and they took Menashe captive in manacles” (II Chronicles 33:10–11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They were manacles of iron and bronze. Rabbi Levi bar Ḥayyata said: They made a bronze cauldron and kindled a fire beneath it. He was crying: ‘Idol so-and-so, idol so-and-so, rescue me!’ When he saw that they were of no avail to him at all, he said: ‘I remember that my father would read to me: “In your distress [all these things] will find you…For the Lord your God is a merciful God [He will not forsake you]” (Deuteronomy 4:30–31). I will cry to Him. If He answers, that is good; if He does not answer, everything is one, all the gods are the same.’ At that moment, the ministering angels arose and sealed all the supernal windows, and they said before Him: ‘Master of the Universe, a person who placed an idol in the Sanctuary, are You accepting him through repentance?’ He said to them: ‘If I do not accept him through repentance, I would thereby be locking the door before all penitents.’ What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He excavated an opening beneath His throne of glory, in a place that no angel has control. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He acceded to his entreaty [vaye’ater] and He heard his supplication” (II Chronicles 33:13). Rabbi Levi said: In Arabia, they call excavation atira. “He handed her roasted grain” – the kingship returned to him, as it is stated: “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). With what did He return him? Rabbi Shmuel in the name of Rabbi Aḥa said: He returned him with the wind. This is what is said: He causes the wind to blow. “She ate, was sated, and left over” – he eats in this world, eats in messianic days, and eats in the future. Alternatively, it is referring to the messianic king. “Come here” – draw near to kingship. “Eat of the bread” – this is the bread of kingship. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar” – these are the afflictions, as it is stated: “He was pained by our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5). “She sat beside [mitzad] the reapers” – his kingship is destined to be temporarily captured [litzod] from him, as it says: “I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem for the war and the city will be captured” (Zechariah 14:2). “He handed her roasted grain” – it is destined to return to him, as it is stated: “He will smite the land with the rod of his mouth” (Isaiah 11:4). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Levi: Like the initial redeemer, so the ultimate redeemer. Just as the initial redeemer was revealed, and then was again concealed from them, and for how long was he concealed from them, for three months, as it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron” (Exodus 5:20); (The midrash interprets this as referring to the officers of the Israelites meeting Moses and Aaron after Moses returned from a three-month hiatus in Midyan. See Shemot Rabba 5:19, which similarly states that Moses departed to Midyan, but states that it was for six months.) so too, the ultimate redeemer will be revealed to them and concealed from them. How long will he be concealed from them? Rabbi Tanḥuma in the name of the Rabbis: Forty-five days; that is what is written: “From the time the daily offering is abolished…[one thousand two hundred and ninety days]” (Daniel 12:11), and it is written: “Happy is one who waits and it comes [to one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days]”(Daniel 12:12). These extra days, what are they? Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ketzarta in the name of Rabbi Yona: These are the forty-five days that Israel will gather and eat saltwort; that is what is written: “Who pick saltwort from the bushes.” (Job 30:4). Where will he lead them? (Where will the messianic king lead the Jewish people?) To the Judean Desert, as it is stated: “Behold, I will seduce her and I will lead her to the desert” (Hosea 2:16). [There is] one who says: To the wilderness of Siḥon and Og, as it is stated: “I will yet settle you in tents as in the days of the appointed times” (Hosea 12:10). Anyone who believes in him will live, and one who does not believe in him will go to the nations of the world and they will kill him. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: Ultimately, the Holy One blessed be He will appear to them and rain down manna for them, “and there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Alternatively, “come here,” is referring to Boaz, draw near and “eat of the bread,” this is the bread of the reapers. “Dip your loaf in the vinegar,” as it is the way of reapers to dip their loaves in vinegar. Rabbi Yonatan said: From here it is derived that one takes out sour foods to the threshing floors. “She sat beside the reapers,” she certainly sat alongside them. (But not in their midst, for reasons of modesty.) “He handed her roasted grain,” a light, small amount, with his two fingers. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: You derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the fingers of that righteous man, or that a blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. From where? It is from that which is written: “She ate, was sated, and there was some left over.” (If he gave her just a pinch of roasted grain, how could she have been sated, with grain to spare?) It stands to reason that the blessing rested on the innards of that righteous woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach you that if a person performs a mitzva he should perform it wholeheartedly, as had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21), (This verse is stated regarding Reuben saving Joseph from his brothers, who wanted to kill him.) he would have taken him to his father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is emerging to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), he would have emerged to meet [Moses] with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would write it. Now, when a person performs a mitzva, who writes it? Elijah writes it, and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He affixes a seal for them. That is what is written: “Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another, [and the Lord heeded, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him]” (Malachi 3:16).

Variantly: "Reuven shall live for his act with Joseph (viz. Bereshith 37:21), and he shall (therefore,) not die for his act with Bilhah. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: Merit is not exchanged for liability, nor liability for merit — except for the instance of Reuven (above) and that of David (viz. II Samuel 16:13) … And the sages say: Neither merit for liability nor liability for merit, but mitzvoth are rewarded and transgressions are punished. And what is the import of "Reuven shall live and he shall not die"? That he repented of his deed. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: Reuven was far removed from that sin (of cohabitation with Bilhah) and he did not descend to that act. Is it possible that he would stand at the head of the tribes on Mount Eival and say (Devarim 27:20) "Cursed be he who lives with father's wife," having descended to such an act! What, then, is the intent of (Bereshith 49:4) "For you went up on your father's bed?" He was solicitous of his mother's honor (viz. Shabbath 55b).

Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says four approaches in this regard: Who was it who performed kindness with those who were not in need? Abraham, with the ministering angels. It is written: “He stood over them beneath the tree, and they ate” (Genesis 18:8). Were they eating? Rabbi Yudan said: They appeared as though they were eating and drinking, and each course disappeared in turn. How did the Holy One blessed be He reward his descendants? The manna fell for them, the spring arose for them, the quail was present for them, the clouds of glory surrounded them, and the pillar of cloud traveled before them. The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For one who performed kindness for those who were not in need of kindness, the Holy One blessed be He rewarded his descendants; one who performs kindness for those who are in need, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar said another approach in this regard: Who was it who did not perform kindness for those who were not in need of kindness? The Amonites and Moavites, with Israel, as it is written: “Because they did not greet you with bread and with water” (Deuteronomy 23:5). Did Israel need them? Is it not so that all those forty years that Israel was in the wilderness, the manna fell for them, the spring arose for them, the quail was present for them, the clouds of glory surrounded them, and the pillar of cloud traveled before them? Rather, it is common courtesy that those who come from the way, one greets them with food and drink. How did the Holy One blessed be He repay them as a result? “An Amonite or a Moavite shall not enter [into the assembly of the Lord]” (Deuteronomy 23:4). The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For those who did not perform kindness for those who were not in need of kindness, see how He repaid them in punishment; one who does not perform kindness for one who is in need of kindness, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says another approach in this regard: Who was it who performed kindness with one to whom he was beholden? Yitro, with Moses. “He said: Call him and let him eat bread” (Exodus 2:20). Rabbi Simon said: He fed him for his wages, as it is written: “He drew water for us” (Exodus 2:19). (Yitro was merely repaying Moses for having drawn water in order to help Yitro’s daughters give it to the sheep. ) Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Neḥemya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda said: He drew water for us and for our ancestors. (This is based on the doubled Hebrew term employed in the verse “He drew water [dalo dala] for us.” Apparently, the daughters of Yitro had their own sheep, in addition to tending to their father’s sheep (Etz Yosef; cf. Matnot Kehuna). ) Rabbi Neḥemya said: He drew water for us and for the shepherds. The Rabbis said: He drew water for us due to the merit of our ancestors, and for the shepherds in order to make peace. When did the Holy One blessed be He pay his reward? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: In the days of Saul. That is what is written: “Saul said to the Kenite: Go, withdraw and descend [from the midst of the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, and you acted with kindness with all the children of Israel when they came up from Egypt]” (I Samuel 15:6). Did he perform kindness for all Israel? Did he not perform kindness only for Moses alone? Rather, it is to teach you that anyone who performs kindness for one of the prominent leaders of Israel, it is ascribed to him as though he performed kindness for all Israel. The matters can be inferred a fortiori. For one who performed kindness for one to whom he was beholden, see how the Holy One blessed be He repaid him one who performs kindness for one to whom he is not beholden, all the more so. Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Elazar says another approach in this regard. He said: Who was it who performed kindness with one who was in need of kindness? It was Boaz, with Ruth. That is what is written: “Boaz said to her at mealtime: Come here” (Ruth 2:14); draw near. “Eat of the bread” (Ruth 2:14); of the bread of the reapers. “Dip your morsel in vinegar” (Ruth 2:14); as it is the way of the reapers to dip their morsel in vinegar during the dry heat. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: From here [it may be derived] that one takes out food containing vinegar to the threshing floors. (Harvesting and threshing are performed in the summer, and vinegar helps the workers find some relief from the heat.) “She sat alongside the reapers” (Ruth 2:14); in its plain sense. “He handed her a pinch of toasted grain” (Ruth 2:14); he gave her a minute pinch with his fingertips. But is it not written: “She ate, she was satisfied, and she left over”? (Ruth 2:14). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: We derive from this one of two matters: Either a blessing rested on the hand of that righteous man, or a blessing rested in the innards of that righteous woman. But from what is written: “She ate, she was satisfied, and she left over,” we know that a blessing rested in the innards of that righteous woman. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Torah teaches you etiquette. When a person performs a mitzva, he should do so with a joyous heart. Had Reuben known that the Holy One blessed be He would dictate in his regard: “Reuben heard and he rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), (Reuben rescued Joseph from his brothers, who had conspired to kill him. ) he would have carried him and taken him to his father. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He would dictate in his regard: “He handed her a pinch of toasted grain,” he would have fed her fattened calves. Rabbi Kohen and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Simon said in the name of Rabbi Levi: In the past, a person would perform a mitzva and the prophet would record it, but now, when a person performs a mitzva, who records it? It is Elijah and the messianic king, and the Holy One blessed be He signs it for them, like that which is written: “Then those who fear the Lord spoke one to another, and the Lord listened and heeded; a book of remembrance was written before Him” (Malachi 3:16). Rabbi Yehoshua taught: More than what the homeowner does for the poor person, the poor person does for the homeowner, as Ruth says to Naomi: “The name of the man for whom I acted today is Boaz” (Ruth 2:19). (This verse would ordinarily be translated “for whom I worked.” However, the term used for worked [asiti] does not literally mean worked. It is a more general term that can also be translated “did,” or “acted.” ) “Who acted for me” is not written here, but rather, “for whom I acted.” She said to her: ‘I performed many actions and favors with him today for the piece of bread that he gave me.’ (Meaning, by taking the bread that he gave me, I did him a favor by giving him the merit of the mitzva of charity. )

There is a comment by the Midrash Hagadol on the words וישמע ראובן, in 37,21 which illustrates that the brothers did not understand Joseph's true motives. We are told there that the objective of the Torah in telling us of the purity of Reuben's motive, though he dared not express it at the time, was to tell us how highly G–d rates the performance of a good deed when such deed is performed without ulterior motives. Had Reuben known that his deed would be recorded by the Torah and be read in public for millennia, he would have carried Joseph back to his father on his shoulder without delay. Another example of the same idea is Aaron's meeting Moses when the latter returned from Midian to assume the leadership of the Jewish people. Aaron's joy and lack of envy of his younger brother is extolled by the Torah in Exodus 4,14. The Midrash adds that if Aaron had known that the Torah would compliment him on his deed, he would have organised a musical band to welcome Moses home to Egypt instead of merely going to meet him all by himself. The Midrash goes on with a similar comment about the way Boaz treated Ruth amongst the gleaners (Ruth 2,14). Boaz is reported there as inviting Ruth to dip her morsel in vinegar. Had he known that this gesture would have been recorded in Scripture for all to know, he would have offered her all kinds of delicacies.

And his banner of love was over me: He arrayed the four tribal banners and the shekhinah’s camp in the middle, just as He surrounded His throne with the four camps of angels. Michael stands to His right, for he is the angel of love and compassion, corresponding to Reuben, whose banner is situated in the south, who began his career with an act of compassion and rescue, as it says: “Reuben heard and saved him from their hands” [Gen. 37:21]. Uriel is positioned on the left, for he is appointed over justice and vengeance. He corresponds to the tribe of Dan, who produced Micah’s statue and received Jeroboam’s calf. (The association of din, or the left side, with the demonic is strongly enunciated here.) Gabriel stands before Him, corresponding to the kingdom of the house of Judah, whose banner was situated in the east. As it says: “For Judah triumphed over his brothers” [I Chron. 5:2]. Raphael is behind him, corresponding to Ephraim situated in the west, fulfilling the need for healing caused by the sin of Jeroboam. This order corresponds to the world’s four directions: the east, whence light enters the world; the west, in which lie the treasuries of snow and hail and whence come coldness and warmth; the south, whence dews and rains of blessing come; and the north, from which darkness enters the world. Thus is the structure ordered: by day it faces to the east, ruling over command of the day. But at night it faces west to pray; that is opposed to what we have said. (Perhaps implying that darkness should come from the west (opposite to the east) rather than from the north.) Just as the tribal banners are arrayed to symbolize the world to come and this world as we have explained, so too has the tabernacle been constructed according to the order of the upper world, the building of the holy of holies, where the shekhinah rests between the two cherubim. Corresponding to the intermediate angelic world, in which serve those angels whose authority is over the earth, is the tent of meeting, in which are situated the showbread table, the candelabrum and the golden altar, these being inner and spiritual vessels. The golden altar was not designated for wholly burnt offerings or sacrifices, but rather for the incense, which was a matter subtle and spiritual. Facing it was the candelabrum and the light from its six branches issuing as hammered work from its central branch, radiating light at the front of the lamp stand. Corresponding to the terrestrial world is the sacrificial altar, situated in the tabernacle court, upon which all of the sacrifices might be offered. Similarly, three worlds exist within a human being: the world of speech corresponding to the head; that of the life-force from the navel and above; and the natural world from the navel and below, in which are situated multitudinous obstacles.

This is stated in the Midrash [Rabbah] on the Book of Ruth: R. Yitzhak ben Merion said: “Scripture teaches us that if a person performs a mitzvah, he should perform it with a full heart. If Reuven had known that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Reuven heard and saved him [Joseph] from their hand,’ (Gen. 37:21.) he would have carried him on his shoulders and brought him to his father. And if Aharon had known that that the Holy One, blessed be He, would write of him, ‘Behold, he [Aharon] is going out to meet you [Moshe], and when he sees you he will rejoice in his heart,’ (Ex. 4:14.) he [Aharon] would have gone out to greet him with drums and cymbals. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He would record of him, ‘He handed [Ruth] parched grain, and she ate and was satisfied and had some left over,’ (Ruth 2:14.) he would have fed her fattened calves. R. Kohen and R. Yehoshua of Sichnin said in the name of R. Levi, “In the past, when a person performed a mitzvah, the prophets would record it. However, now when a person performs a mitzvah, who will record it? Eliyahu will record it, and it will be sealed by the hands of the Messiah and the Holy One, blessed be He. This is what Scripture states: ‘Then those who fear the Lord spoke to one another, (That is, Eliyahu speaks with the Messiah.) and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and those who give thought to His Name.’” (Mal. 3:16.)

He handed her roasted grain… “Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach that if a person performs a mitzvah he should perform it wholeheartedly. Had Reuben known that the blessed Holy One was writing: “Reuben heard and rescued him (Joseph) from their hands,” (Gen. 37:21) he would have taken his brother to their father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the blessed Holy One was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is coming out to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), Aaron would have emerged to meet Moses with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves.” (Ruth Rabbah 5:6) It is possible to explain this statement, by beginning with Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz’s, (Jacob Hagiz (1620–1674) was a Jewish Talmudist born of a Sephardi Jewish family at Fes, Morocco. Ḥagiz's teacher was David Karigal who afterward became his father-in-law. In about 1646, Ḥagiz went to Italy for the purpose of publishing his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. About 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Livorno had founded a beit midrash for him and where he became a member of the rabbinical college. (Wikipedia)) explanation in Korban Mincha: (S. 115) “Israel heard. The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (The full verse states, “While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (JPS translation)) (Gen. 35:22) the sages state in a Midrash on Parshat V’Zot HaBerachah that Jacob had been given the Torah and in this way Reuben was saved because he was exempt for having had relations with his father’s concubine. This is what the verse states, “Israel heard,” that he had the status of an Israelite and therefore, “The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” If the sons had the status of Noahides, then Reuben would have been put to death for this act and there would not have been twelve sons of Jacob. That is what is stated, “The heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Jacob,” (Deut. 33:4) There was already a heritage or a tradition of betrothal for Jacob and his children that marriage is only finalized through chuppah. (Therefore, the concubine was not judged as one of Jacob’s wives according to Jewish law.) “Then he became King in Jeshurun,” (Deut. 33:5) this refers to Moses who gather all the heads of the people (and officially taught them the laws), “Numerous people is the glory of a king,” (Prov. 14:28) This is the reason for the statement, “May Reuben live and not die,” (Deut. 35:6) Because Rebuen was judged as a Israelite, he did not die as a Noahide. This is the essence of his explanation in short. In my youth I wrote a treatise called Rosh David (P. 36) containing the opinion of Rabbi Chagiz, expressed in the introduction of Parashat Derachim. (A work containing twenty-six homiletic treatises on various subjects, by Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes. He (1657-1727) was a Rabbi of Constantinople. On account of his knowledge of Arabic and Turkish he was appointed by the government as chief rabbi of the Ottoman empire. He took a very active part in condemning and denouncing the Shabbethaians, and was one of the signers of an appeal to the German communities to oppose the movement. This work and others were edited & published by his devoted pupil Rabbi Yaakov Culi, author of Meam Loez. (https://seforimcenter.com)) I explained all of these verses there but I never found the Midrash on V’Zot HaBerachah that Rabbi Hagiz mentions. However, what was written on, “The heritage of the congregation of Jacob,” was explained there. And according to this one can explain, “O offspring of Israel, His servant;” (offspring of Israel, His servant, O descendants of Jacob, His chosen ones.) (I Chron. 16:13) Israel - our forefather Jacob - received Torah and passed it onto his children so that Reuben was not guilty of sin and there would still be the 12 sons of Jacob. Some have written in homilies that Joseph the righteous assumed that they had the status of Noahides as the author of Parashat Derachim and others wrote. If this were so then Reuben would have been deserving of he death penalty (God Forbid!). While it was Reuben’s righteous intention to save Joseph, he didn’t try hard enough, because he was afraid that he would find out that the law was according to Joseph and that they had the status of a Noahides. If he saved Joseph he might have brought evil upon himself. If he had known, however, that God would write that he would save Joseph from the brothers, in other words, similar to what the Torah states, “He tried to save him from them,” (Gen 37:21) and also, “Intending to save him from them in order to return him to his father.” (Gen. 37:22) (he might have acted differently.) His only intention was to bring Joseph back. This is what the Holy One wrote about him and it proves that he had the status of an Israelite for whom good intentions are joined to actions. (See BT Kiddushin 40a: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Mal. 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah, as he is among those that think upon His name.” This however only applies to Jews and not non-Jews.) If, however, Reuven was considered a Noahide, then good intentions would not be joined to his actions. Since the blessed Holy One wrote that he had the status of Israelites, he had no fear that they would say that he had the status of a Noahide as Joseph claimed, and that he was guilty (of having relations with his father’s concubine). Then he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders back to Jacob even though Joseph thought the law was different. Still, Reuben saved him because he knew that one who saves an Israelite is as if he saved the whole world. And that is why one who performs a commandment should do so with a whole heart and not worry about suspicions or other matters. And we have heard about Reuben with whom damage would have resulted had he acted on his thoughts when they (the brothers) sold Joseph resulting in a step between him and death, and all the other events that would have come to pass. One might conclude that Reuben should have acted on his good intentions and not worried about those who disagreed. But what if one’s action will not lead to such damages; should one worry about “the scorn of the complacent?” (Ps. 123:4) The Midrash brings proof to show that a person should still perform mitzvot with a wholeheart even if there is no danger of damage as in the case of Aaron. It is possible that Aaron thought that Israelites were considered Noahides when he saw what his father, Amram, did. Amram was one of the righteous people of his generation. He was one of four who died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent (and not because of his own sin). (BT Shabbat 55b) He married his own aunt, Yocheved. According to Targum Yonatan when he divorced her she married Elitzafan ben Parnach but in the end, he remarried her and they gave birth to Moses. All of these acts would later be forbidden by Torah law. As a result, Aaron concluded that the Israelites had the status of Noahides until they received the Torah. Amram could take his aunt as a wife, divorce her and then take her back as a wife because the Torah had not yet been given. However, in order not to cause the scorn of the masses, Aaron didn’t want to go out to meet his brother with “drums and dance” which would have given the people an excuse to talk about his family or Moses. That is why he went out to greet Moses privately. Even though there was no danger or suffering involved in this matter, he thought that it was better to worry about scorn of the people. Thus we learn that even in this situation, it is better to perform the commandment with a full heart... If Aaron had known that God would write, “he (Aaron) will be happy in his heart to see you.” (Ex. 4:14) he would have known that they had the status of Israelites and his analysis was incorrect. Amram had acted according to the word of God, as the Zohar comments on the verse, “A man from the house of Levi…” (Ex. 2:1), then Aaron would have gone forth with timbrels and dancing (when meeting his brother), to fulfill the commandment properly. Further we also learn this lesson from Boaz. It occurred to Boaz and he saw through the Holy Spirit that he would marry Ruth. Further Ruth said, “Why are you so kind as to single me out, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) The sages comment, “To single me out,” in the way of all the earth. Boaz only gave her a little grain because he was fearful that people would say that he didn’t do so for the sake of a commandment but rather out of desire for her and in order to marry her. If Boaz had known that God would write about him, “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate her fill and had some left over,” so that it appeared as of he gave her a extra in order to satisfy her hunger, when in fact he gave her just a little bit but it was blessed, as the sage explain. But the blessed Holy One wrote that he gave her enough for her satisfaction. But if he really valued the mitzvah he would have given her fatted chickens! Further it states the details; it states that he said to her”“Come over here and partake of the meal, and dip your morsel in the vinegar.” and afterwards it states that he gave her roasted grains, all as part of a single commandment to feed her. Had Boaz known how important this mitzvah was, he would have fed her fatted chickens.

דגל מחנה ראובן, “the banner of the camp of Reuven, etc.,” this camp was situated at the South of the Tabernacle. Reuven was a repentant sinner. The acceptance of repentance by G‘d is an outstanding act of love and kindness on G’d’s part vis-a-vis His creatures. Seeing that Reuven was the first person to demonstrate repentance he opened the gate for other repentant sinners. The Torah credited Reuven with having intended to save Joseph and even attributed Joseph’s life being saved to his suggestion to throw him into a pit instead of killing him (Genesis 37,21). His camp was accompanied by that of Shimon who was born right after him by his mother Leah. He was joined by the soldiers of the tribe of Gad, the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant Zilpah. The Torah writes that this camp was second in the procession of the Israelites traveling. The expression ושניים יסעו, “they are to travel in second position,” is a hint at the emanation בינה which is second to the emanation חכמה, which had been represented by the camp of Yehudah. The camp of Reuven may be perceived as a counterpart to the celestial camp headed by the archangel Michael whose camp also included the angels Kuchbiel and Pediel who are positioned to the right of the Shechinah. All three are known as the camp of Michael, seeing he represents the attribute of Love and Mercy. It was this camp which Moses alluded to when he said in the song after crossing the sea of reeds מי כמוך, and he concluded the Torah with the verse commencing אין כאל ישורון. When you combine the word מי in the Shirah, with the word כאל in Deut. 33,26 you get the word מיכאל, a reference to that angel who represents the attribute of Mercy. Following this we encounter the camp of the Levites as traveling בתוך המחנות, “amidst the other camp.” You are aware already that the camp of the Levites consisted of 22.000 men from the age of one month and up (3,39). This number corresponded to the number of angels who had accompanied the Shechinah at the revelation at Mount Sinai. This has been alluded to in Psalms 68,18 as we pointed out before. These 22.000 angels were the ones that are normally the angels closest to the Shechinah.

תחת אשר לא עבדת את ה' אלוקיך בשמחה, “because you did not serve the Lord your G’d joyfully.” The Torah accuses people who do serve G’d not to have done so joyfully. A person is obligated not merely to carry out G’d’s instructions but to do so gladly, in a happy frame of mind. Joy when performing any of G’d’s commandments is considered as fulfillment of a commandment by itself, meriting additional reward. This is why one may be punished for failing to perform the commandments with a joyful heart. This is why the Torah requires that its commandments be performed with full intent and joyfully. Our sages in Midrash Ruth Rabbah 5,6 comment concerning this that if Reuven had been aware that G’d would write in the Torah concerning his attempts to save Joseph’s life from the hands of his other brothers (Genesis 37,21) that he would receive a reward not only for his deed but for the good intentions accompanying same, he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders and brought him back to his (their) father. The Torah also makes a point of underlining the joy in Aaron’s heart when he saw his brother Moses again after so many years. Had he known that his feelings would be commented upon favorably (Exodus 4,14), he would have gone out to meet his brother accompanied by an orchestra of many different musical instruments. Had Boaz known that his offering Ruth food and drink in abundance would be recorded for eternity as a good deed of his, he would have fed her the choicest parts of a fatted calf, instead of merely bread and vinegar (Ruth 2,14).

בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

While my son, Reuben, even though Joseph took his birthright from him by force, as it is written: “And the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but, since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, son of Israel” (I Chronicles 5:1). Nevertheless, he was not jealous of him, as it is written when Joseph’s brothers sought to kill him: “And Reuben heard and he saved him from their hands, saying ‘Let us not take his life’” (Genesis 37:21).

§ Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: For what reason was Reuben privileged to be enumerated first in the rescue, as the first city of refuge listed is Bezer (see Deuteronomy 4:43), which is located in the tribal portion of Reuben? It is due to the fact that he began the rescue of Joseph first, as it is stated: “And Reuben heard and delivered him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21).

Reuvein heard and rescued him from their hands. He said, Let us not kill him.

And Reuben heard, and delivered him from their hands, and said, We will not kill him nor become guilty of his blood.

In the midrash (Shemot Rabbah 5:6) " and I turned to see… that which he already did…” (Ecclesiastes 2:12). For a person should know that every action affects his essence in a place so high that a person’s understanding cannot reach there at all. And because of this, it is necessary that all the intellect and all the desires are nullified to the will of Hashem. Similarly, I heard from my father, my master, my teacher and mentor, the righteous one who should be remembered for life in the World to Come, about what the midrash says, that if Reuven had known that the Torah had written about him “in order to save him” (Genesis 37:22), he would have carried Yosef on his shoulders back to his father (Rus Rabbah 5:6, Vayikra Rabbah 34:8). God forbid that he would have done this because of the honor that the verse would attest to him, but if he had known that the matter affected so much that the verse would write… Until here are the words of my father. And every action of a person is already decreed in heaven. And that is what the verse means, “that which he already did” (Ecclesiastes 2:12). Because on high, every action that a person will do is already decreed before Hashem; if so, it is not pertinent to question Him. And certainly it seemed obvious to King Solomon that his heart would not be led astray. But a person's actions affect that which is above his ability to understand. And consequently, there can be a change in the essence of a person. And if so, a person cannot know this at all. And it is written (Shemot Rabbah 5:6) that the letter yud in the word “yirbeh” (increase) went up before Hashem and said, Solomon is nullifying me! And is it true that someone who performs a sin nullifies a letter? But certainly through sin a person is cut off from clinging. But King Solomon knew that through the power of the Torah that was in him and the life force of Hashem which he was connected to without separation, he said “I will increase and not be led astray [and that's what the verse says, “God is with me and I will prevail” (Proverbs 30:1)]. And therefore, the yud, which signifies thought [which is the essence, as we say “the end is action, the beginning is thought” (Friday night prayers)], went up and said… And similarly by Moshe. He said, “Why did You do evil to Your nation?" (Exodus 5:22). Certainly he was not able to depict, God forbid, the evil of Israel. And Hashem responded to Him, “I am God” (Exodus 6:2), that all existences are through My will; if so, questions and challenges are not pertinent. And He also commanded him to say to the children of Israel, “I am Hashem” (Exodus 6:6), so that they will know that even the exile of Egypt was only through the life force of Hashem, because all existences are from Him. “And they didn’t listen to Moshe because of shortness of breath” (Exodus 6:9), because when they were in exile, this matter was not revealed [the meaning of “shortness of breath” is the life force of Hashem that is in a person, as it is written “and He blew into his nostrils a breath of life” (Genesis 2:7). And in exile the clinging to the essence of the life force is halted] and that is what is written in the midrash, that everything is from the Torah, He established in it positive commandments and negative commandments… (Shemot Rabbah 6:1), meaning that every action of a person of Israel has a life force in Torah and mitzvos that are dependent on action. And therefore the action of a person affects that which is above, and it draws from the life force of Hashem. And similarly what is written about the holy Sabbath, “that Hashem created to make” (Genesis 2:3), meaning that which is done even now through the desire of Hashem at the time of the creation, and on the Sabbath the children of Israel testify about this, that the truth was made clear. And this is what is written “and you should honor it from doing your desires…” (Isaiah 58:13), the Sages explained that all your work should be done. We can say as we said above, that one should know that also that which a person is doing is already done through the will of Hashem, as it is written “a person only injures a finger below if they decree so about him on high” (Chullin 7b), and that is what is written “that which was already done” (Ecclesiastes 2:12), as we said above. And on the Sabbath it is the aspect of nullification and the acceptance of the yoke of heaven, to nullify oneself to the essence of life. And through this, every action is drawn after its essence in heaven. Because it is written, “He did wonders” (Psalms 98:1). And the Rama in Orach Chaim explained “and does wondrous things” (Blessing of Asher Yatzar), that the action has in it an aspect of wonder, (see the Magen Avraham there, Orach Chaim 6:1). And also the wisdom of a person needs to be nullified to the aspect of the essence of wisdom, as it is written “from where is it found…” (Job 28:12). Because a person knows that when he grows and becomes wiser, he sees that that which he did not consider to be a sin beforehand was a mistake, and so too afterwards even more. If so, for true wisdom there is no measure, and all knowledge must be nullified to the word of Hashem, and everything will be drawn to the essence, as we said above.

אל הבור הזה, “to this pit;” the word אל has been used here instead of the prefix ב. In other words: “into this pit.” We have a similar construction in Numbers 19,6: והשליך אל תוך שרפת הפרה, “and he will throw it into the fire consuming the cow.”

להשיבו אל אביו, “intending to bring him back to his father.” His intentions were good; if you were to ask that even though the pit may have been dry, it most likely served as a lair for all kinds of poisonous snakes etc.? The fact that the Torah writes the unnecessary word: רק, “empty,” informs us that the brothers had made sure there were no harmful creatures hiding in it either. After Reuven had left, the brothers threw Joseph into another pit which was infested with snakes and scorpions. When the Torah describes Reuven’s shock when he returned to the first pit later and found it empty, that was the pit which he had told his brothers to throw him, into.

אל תשפכו דם, his blood is innocent, i.e. he is not guilty of a capital crime. But throw him into this pit if you are so angry about his dreams and the way he presents them. You may repay him by making him feel pain such as yours, but do not touch him in a way that will lead to his death. When Reuven said: “throw him into this pit,” he did so in order to know where to find him later and to bring him back safely to his father after rescuing him from the pit. He did not mean for Joseph to be harmed in any way.

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear? (Further, 42:22.) Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.” Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood. The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there. Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water. (Verse 24 here.) Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis. (Shabbath 27a.) If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me. (Daniel 6:23.) But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it. In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.” (Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it to indicate that there was no water at all in it.) Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live, (II Kings 20:1.) which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

השליכו אותו אל הבור הזה אשר במדבר, where no one passes so that he will die from natural causes.

למען הציל, in order to really save him. The verse illustrates Reuven’s intention of not only saving Joseph’s life, but of bringing him back safely to his father, as the Torah testifies later in the course of its narrative.

למען הציל אתו THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER HIM [OUT OF THEIR HAND] — The Holy Spirit (Scripture) bears witness for Reuben that he said this only for the purpose of saving his brother — that he would come afterwards and draw him up from there. He thought, “I am the first-born and the chief among them, and blame will attach to no one but myself” (Genesis Rabbah 84:15).

ויד אל תשלחו בו, according to your judgment that he deserves killing as a רודף, someone threatening you with death or perdition. (compare Samuel I 24,13 מרשעים יצא רשע וידי לא תהיה בך, “although from wicked people come wicked deeds, my hand will never touch you. [David telling G’d that he will personally not harm his persecutor King Sha-ul, but he leaves it to G’d to deal with him. Ed.]

למען הציל אותו, in order to raise him from the pit afterwards.

The Divine Spirit testifies concerning Reuvein. Rashi is answering the question: How could Reuvein himself have said they should throw Yoseif in the pit so he may bring him back to his father? If they knew this, they would not let Reuvein rescue him! Furthermore, if these were Reuvein’s words, it should say, “My purpose is to rescue.” Why does it say, “His purpose was to rescue”? Re’m comments: I do not understand why Rashi needed to write this. It is selfevident that these are not Reuvein’s words.

He thought: “I am the firstborn and the oldest of them all... You might ask: How does Rashi know this is why Reuvein wanted to save him? Perhaps he was very pious and did not want to kill? The answer is: In Parshas Vayechi, among the blessings with which Yaakov blessed his sons, it is written that he blessed Yehudah, who said: “What will we gain if we kill our brother... come let us sell him...” Yet, why did Yaakov not bless Reuvein, who wanted to totally rescue Yoseif and bring him back to his father? Whereas Yehudah suggested to sell him! Perforce, Reuven’s intent was not for the sake of Heaven, but so people should not put the blame on him, saying: “You are the firstborn...” (Maharshal)

Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him. Left alone, he will die of starvation; there is no need for us to kill him with our own hands. The verse points out that Reuben suggested this course of action only in order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father. Perhaps Reuben did not join his brothers in their hatred of Joseph, and he therefore urged the brothers not to murder Joseph. He then attempted to convince them to cast Joseph into a pit, with the intention to later return and extract Joseph from the pit and bring him home. 5

To rescue him. See Rashi; the Rashba derives from here that good deeds should be publicized.

השליחו אותו אל הבור הזה, “throw him into this pit, etc.” He said: “into this pit,” because he had ascertained that that pit did not contain any harmful substances. The brothers did not heed him and threw him into a pit containing harmful substances such as snakes and scorpions, according to our sages. This is the meaning of verse 29 that when Reuven returned to the pit there was no Joseph in it. Nachmanides writes that according the Midrash that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, we must assume that the brothers had not seen those. They must have been hiding in nooks and cracks within the pit. The fact that they did not ham Joseph before he was lifted out and sold was due to a miracle. This proves that Joseph was quite innocent, else why would G’d have extended this kind of help to him? I do not understand why anyone needs to resort to an explanation of this kind, for even if we do not consider Joseph as a totally innocent victim but as at least partially guilty, he was certainly not an evil person and did not deserve to die. In spite of his not being guilty of death the brothers set about killing him. The reason was that hatred distorts one’s ability to judge fairly and to apply one’s reason objectively. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words “the pit was empty,” mean that there was no accumulation of water inside the pit, for if there had been water in it, it could not be described as “empty.”

“Cast him into that pit” [37:22]. Reuben said: throw him into a pit. Hizkuni asks a question here. If indeed there were snakes in the pit, so what did Reuben’s advice help? The snakes would devour Joseph. The explanation is that Reuben told them to throw him into a pit that did not have snakes. Reuben thought to himself: when my brothers will leave, I will steal him out of the pit and bring him to our father. However, the brothers took him out of that pit and threw him into a pit that contained snakes. That is why it is written in the verse that Reuben came back to the pit and he did not find Joseph in the pit. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:22.)

Problems in the text: 1) Since the Torah states that Joseph recognized his brothers though they did not recognize him, what point was there in deliberately acting like a stranger? Why is the fact that he did not recognize them repeated? 2) Why did Joseph remember his dreams as soon as he saw his brothers? Would it not have been better to state that as soon as he saw his brothers, "He remembered what they had done to him?" 3) Why did Joseph accuse the brothers of spying? How was that accusation countered by the brothers explaining that they were all the sons of one father? Why did they repeat this statement, and how did their answer cause Joseph to say that this only confirmed his suspicions? 4) Why did Yehudah say, "My lord asked if we had a father etc," when in fact the Torah does not report that Joseph had asked this at all? 5) The two accusations A) you are spies and B) you came to look for the weakness of the country, seem not to have been responded to by the brothers. How could Joseph ignore the ongoing anguish suffered by his father and not reveal to him that he was alive? 6) It seems strange that during the three days that all the brothers were imprisoned, no mention is made of any mutual recriminations; neither did they ascribe their misfortune to the manner in which they had treated Joseph at the time the latter had pleaded with them from inside the pit while they were imprisoned. Only after their release and Joseph's statement that he was a G-d-fearing man, do the brothers admit that they deserved punishment for their insensitive conduct towards Joseph. Besides, how could Reuben accuse his brothers of not listening to his pleas not to spill Joseph's blood but rather to throw him into the pit, when in fact they had listened to him? 7) The conversation between the brothers in the presence of an interpreter seems foolish. It would only make sense if there were no one present who understood Hebrew. Why did they reveal their secrets while being overheard? The use of the word "sack and fodderbag" seems confusing (42,27). Why did not all the brothers examine their sacks as soon as one of them had discovered that he still had his money? Why is the expression "sacks" not used when the brothers came back to Egypt later? We do not find the word used when they examined their loads! 8) Why did Jacob refuse to accept Reuben's proposal, seeing he knew quite well that sooner or later the brothers would be forced to undertake a second journey to Egypt? What new dimension did Yehudah's proposal contribute which moved his father to approve of their journey? Why did Jacob describe the return of the money as only a possible error on the part of the Egyptians? 9) Why are we told all the details about what was served at the luncheon, and why all the details about the seating arrangements? If the Midrash is accurate, then the Torah should have stated "Joseph seated them according to their age, instead of "They sat down according to their age." The latter would hardly be cause for amazement by the brothers, it would be perfectly normal for them to sit down in that order. 10) The last time, Joseph had ordered that the brothers be given "grain." This time he ordered that they be given "food." Why the change? Why was the money this time placed at the opening of their fodderbags, whereas the last time it was put "in the sack?" 11) What is the meaning of "Also this time I accept your argument?" 12) Why did Yehudah volunteer all the brothers to become servants of Joseph? Surely, when one is in danger one must not voluntarily give up any advantages one still possesses, in this case one's very freedom! 13) Why did Yehudah make his speech when Joseph had already displayed extreme consideration by insisting that only the guilty party be punished, and that there would not be any guilt by association? What more could he reasonably have expected to accomplish? 14) The review of events as described by Yehudah lacks foundation in fact. Joseph had never asked about their father till the brothers had volunteered they had an aged father. How could Yehudah summon up the courage to misrepresent the facts as he does in 44,19? 15) Why do most commentators regard the words "he will die," as applying to Jacob, when the subject at the beginning in verse 44,22 refers to "the lad dying?" 16) What precisely is the meaning of "to control oneself," when words such as "to suffer," "to keep a grip on oneself," seem more appropriate to describe Joseph's feeling of discomfiture when he heard Yehudah describe Jacob? 17) Why was Joseph's first question after he had revealed himself to the brothers, "Is my father still alive?" After all, he had heard from the mouth of Yehudah repeatedly that their father was still alive. Why did Joseph first say "You have sold me here," and then reverse himself saying, "Not you have sent me here, but G-d etc.?" 18) Why did Joseph instruct his brothers to hurry home and not to engage in arguments? Why did he specifically instruct that his power and glory in Egypt should be mentioned only at the end of the brothers' report about their reunion? 19) What is the meaning of the words "My mouth is speaking to you, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin witness all this?" 20) Pharaoh seems to repeat the order to allow Joseph's family to immigrate in 45,17 and again in 45,19-20, as well as that they were to be given V.I.P. status. Why? 21) Why did Benjamin receive bigger gifts and 300 shekel, a gift the brothers did not receive?

“On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben, Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:30). “On the fourth day, prince of the children of Reuben…” – once the banner of Judah (See Numbers 2:1–9.) finished, the prince of Reuben began presenting his offering, because he was the firstborn, and he presented the offering regarding his tribe of Reuben. “His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:31). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, full of incense” (Numbers 7:32). “His offering was one silver dish [ke’arat]” (Numbers 7:31), do not read it as ke’arat, but rather, as akeret; this is Reuben, who played the main [ikar] role in the rescue [of Joseph]. It was he who first initiated the rescue. That is what is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21). Alternatively, that he uprooted [akar] the thought of his brothers, who wanted to kill him, just as it says: “Now let us go and kill him…” (Genesis 37:20). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). ”Its weight one hundred and thirty,” this is because the first three letters of the first three words that he said to them, their numerical value totals one hundred and thirty. “Let us not smite him mortally [lo nakenu nafesh]” (Genesis 37:21); take lamed from lo, nun from nakenu, and nun from nafesh; that is one hundred and thirty. (Lamed is thirty and nun is fifty, so 30 + 50 + 50 = 130.) “One silver basin [mizrak],” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the counsel he gave them that they should cast [sheyizreku] him into the pit, just as it says: “Reuben said to them: Do not shed blood; cast him into [this] pit…” (Genesis 37:22). “Silver,” in the sense of: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “Of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel” (Numbers 7:31), corresponding to the secret [sod] that was in his heart to save him [Joseph]. The numerical value of sod is seventy. (Samekh is sixty, vav is 6 and dalet is 4 = 70.) “Both of them full of high quality flour…” (Numbers 7:31), as what he said to them: “Let us not smite him mortally” and “cast him,” he intended only to rescue him, as in both matters, (His statement not to kill Joseph, and his proposal to throw Joseph into the pit.) rescue is written: Initially, it is written: “Reuben heard and rescued him from their hand” (Genesis 37:21), and ultimately, it is written: “In order to rescue him from their hand” (Genesis 37:22). “One gold ladle [kaf], ten shekels…” (Numbers 7:32), kaf, (Kaf also means palm or hand.) corresponding to what he said to his brothers: “Do not lay a hand on him” (Genesis 37:22). “Gold…ten shekels,” because he saved himself by admonishing them, and he saved nine brothers from bloodshed. That is why “gold” is written, as there is one type of gold that resembles blood, and that is parvayim gold. “Full of incense” (Numbers 7:32), although it happened to the tribes that Joseph’s sale befell them, you presume that this act would not have befallen them unless they had been wicked in performing other acts. No, but rather they were full-fledged righteous men, and no sin had ever befallen them other than this one: That is what is written: “They said one to another: But we are guilty [regarding our brother]” (Genesis 42:21). They were engaged in self-reflection as to why their detention in Egypt befell them, but found only this. From their disgrace, the verse relates their praise, that they had only this iniquity alone attributable to them. And because Joseph’s sale was fortuitous for him, as it led him to rule, and it was fortuitous for his brothers and his father’s entire household, as he provided them with food during the famine years, that is why he was sold by them, because merit is engendered by means of the meritorious. That is “full of incense.” Another matter, “full of incense,” as, at that time, Reuben was a penitent, donning sackcloth, fasting, and praying before the Holy One blessed be He, that He grant him atonement for the iniquity of the act with Bilha. (See Genesis 35:22.) Prayer is likened to incense, just as it says: “Let my prayer stand as incense before You…” (Psalms 141:2). That is, “full of incense.” “One young bull, one ram, one lamb in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:33). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34). “And for the peace offering, two cattle, five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year. This was the offering of Elitzur son of Shedeur” (Numbers 7:35). “One young bull…” (Numbers 7:33), these are the offerings that he sacrificed, corresponding to the penitence in which he was engaged when Joseph was sold. Penitence is likened to all the offerings of a sinner, as it is written: “Offerings to God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51:19). Just as the sinner brings a burnt offering and a sin offering for his sin, that is why he brought here a burnt offering and a sin offering, corresponding to them. And because the burnt offering is more cherished (By the Holy One blessed be He.) than the sin offering, that is why he sacrificed a burnt offering from all the species with the exception of the goat, as we do not find the goat as a burnt offering throughout the Torah. “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:34), this is to atone for the act with Bilha. “And for the peace offering, two cattle” (Numbers 7:35), because he was [going to be] excluded from being enumerated with his brothers because of the act with Bilha, as it is written: “Reuben went and lay with Bilha, his father's concubine, and Israel heard” (Genesis 35:22), the matter was interrupted, (Genesis 35:22 is written in the Torah with an empty space in the middle of the verse following the phrase "and Israel heard," before the continuation “the sons of Jacob were twelve.”) as it placed the end of the portion there, alluding that he was banished. This is why that portion is an open portion, as even though he was banished, the arms of the Holy One blessed be He are open to receive penitents. Because he sought to perform two good deeds, Joseph’s rescue and repentance, he was restored to be part of them, and was included in their tally. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve” (Genesis 35:22). Due to these two acts that Reuben performed, Moses found an opportunity to pray on behalf of Reuben so that he would not be excluded from his brothers. That is what is written: “May Reuben live [and not die, and may his people be counted]” (Deuteronomy 33:6). “May Reuben live,” because he gave life to Joseph; “and not die,” due to the act of Bilha, because he repented; “and may his people be counted,” may his descendants be included in the tally of the other tribes in every sense. That is why it is stated: “And for the peace offering, two cattle [bakar]” (Numbers 7:35), corresponding to the two good deeds that he sought out [shebiker], Joseph’s rescue and the repentance, he was restored and was enumerated with his brothers. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:35), why three species? It is corresponding to the three times Reuben is mentioned in the portion of Joseph’s rescue and corresponding to the three “vayomer” that are written there. (Genesis 37:21, 22, 30.) Why were there five of each? They correspond to the five words through which Reuben was drawn near. That is what is written: “The sons of Jacob were twelve.” (There are five words in the Hebrew phrase.) “This was the offering of Elitzur…” (Numbers 7:35), when the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering in this order, He began lauding his offering; “this was the offering…”

“Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of villainy are their heritage” (Genesis 49:5). Reuben went out and his ears were slumped. [Jacob] began calling: “Simeon and Levi are brothers” – brothers for degradation. He said to them: ‘You were brothers for Dina, as it is written: “Two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, each took his sword” (Genesis 34:25), but not brothers for Joseph, as you sold him.’ Rabbi Simlai said: In Reuben’s regard it is written: “In order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father” (Genesis 37:22). Reuben was not involved in Joseph’s sale. Judah, too, said to them: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother]?” (Genesis 37:26). These were the eldest; consequently, the two of them sold him. (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were the oldest sons of Jacob. If Reuben and Judah were not involved in the sale, it must have been Simeon and Levi who organized it. ) Know that it is so, for when they descended to Egypt, [Joseph] took from them none other than Simeon, as it is stated: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). That is why [Jacob] called the two of them as one. “Weapons of villainy” – what are weapons of villainy? He said to them: ‘They have been stolen by you; they are not yours. They belong to Esau, in whose regard it is written: “By your sword you shall live”’ (Genesis 27:40). Those are weapons of villainy, and villainy is none other than Esau, as it is stated: “For the villainy to your brother Jacob” (Obadiah 1:10). (Thus, Jacob was saying that the weapons of Simeon and Levi belong to Esau, who is the subject of the verse in Obadiah. ) “Their heritage [mekheroteihem]” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a Greek expression, makhirin, makhirin>. Some say: “Mekhuroteihen” – their residences [meguroteihem], just as it says: “Your origins [mekhorotayikh] and your birthplace” (Ezekiel 16:3). “Let my soul not come in their company; with their assembly let my glory not be associated; for in their anger they killed men, and with their will they hamstrung oxen” (Genesis 49:6). “Let my soul not come in their company” – when Zimri will arise and perform that act with Kozbi, let my name not be mentioned there, as it is stated: “The name of the man of Israel who was slain…[Zimri, son of Salu, a prince of a patrilineal house of the Simeonites]” (Numbers 25:14). (The name of Jacob is not mentioned. ) “With their assembly let my glory not be associated” – when Koraḥ will assemble his congregation to dispute, let my name not be associated with them, but rather, “Koraḥ, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi” (Numbers 16:1), but it did not say: “Son of Jacob.” “For in their anger they killed men [ish]” – did they kill one man [ish]; is it not written: “They killed all the males” (Genesis 34:25)? It is that they were all considered before the Holy One blessed be He like one man. Likewise it says: “Behold [hen], nations may be regarded like a drop from a bucket…” (Isaiah 40:16). What is hen? In the Greek language, hen is one. Likewise it says: “You will smite Midian as one man” (Judges 6:16). Similarly, “the horse and its rider He cast into the sea” (Exodus 15:1) – like one horse and its rider. (The singular terms are used in order to indicate that God cast all the many horses and riders of the Egyptian army into the sea as though they were just one. ) “Cursed is their anger, as it is fierce, and their wrath, as it is harsh; I will divide them in Jacob, and I will disperse them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). “Cursed is their anger” – he cursed only their anger. Likewise, the wicked Bilam says: “How will I curse, where God has not cursed” (Numbers 23:8)? If at a time of anger he cursed only their anger, can I come to curse them? (If Jacob was angry at Simeon and Levi and yet, with divine spirit, Jacob cursed only their anger and not them, can I, Bilam, curse the Israelites? ) “I will divide them in Jacob” – how so? Twenty-four thousand fell from the tribe of Simeon in [the incident of] Zimri, and its widows were twenty-four thousand. They were divided into two thousand for each and every tribe, as it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.” Everyone who circulates among the doorways [to beg] is from the tribe of Simeon. The Holy One blessed be He said: Levi too will circulate. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He provided him with his sustenance cleanly, and yet Jacob’s edict was fulfilled. The Holy One blessed be He elevated [Levi] and gave him one-tenth, (The first tithe of produce. ) and he circulates and says: ‘Give me my portion.’ That is why it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.”

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

(Gen. 37:22:) REUBEN ALSO SAID UNTO THEM: DO NOT SHED BLOOD. Why? < It is > as the Holy Spirit says (ibid.): IN ORDER TO SAVE HIM FROM THEIR HAND < AND RESTORE HIM UNTO HIS FATHER >. If Reuben had known that the Holy One would write this verse about him, he would have placed him on his shoulders and brought him unto his father! (Gen. R. 84:16; Lev. R. 34:8.)

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

And when Jacob saw that they were delaying in Shechem, Jacob said to himself: Perhaps that ‎the inhabitants of Shechem rose up to fight against them and therefore their coming home ‎hath been delayed to-day. And Jacob called unto Joseph his son, saying: Behold thy brothers ‎are feeding the flock in Shechem, and they have not yet returned; go thou therefore and look ‎after them, and bring me back words concerning the peace of thy brothers and concerning the ‎cattle. And Jacob sent his son from the valley of Hebron; and Joseph went unto his brothers in ‎Shechem but he found them not. And Joseph went about in the fields about Shechem to ‎ascertain whither his brothers had turned, and he lost his way in the wilderness, and he knew ‎not in which direction he should go. And an angel of the Lord met him wandering about in the ‎field, and he asked him, saying: What seekest thou? And Joseph said unto the angel: I seek my ‎brethren, knowest thou where they are feeding? And the angel of the Lord replied unto ‎Joseph: I saw thy brothers feeding here, but I heard them say that they would go to feed in ‎Dothan. And Joseph listened to the voice of the angel and he went to Dothan unto his ‎brothers and he found them feeding the flock in Dothan. And Joseph advanced towards his ‎brothers, but ere he had reached them, they had concluded to kill him. And Simeon said unto ‎his brothers: Behold the dreamer cometh unto us to-day. And now come and let us kill him, ‎and cast him into some pit in the wilderness, and when our father will inquire for him, we will ‎say, some evil beast hath devoured him. And Reuben heard the words of his brothers ‎concerning Joseph, and he said unto them: Do not do such a thing, for how could we look up to ‎our father? Cast him into this pit, that he may die therein, but lay no hand upon him, to shed ‎his blood. And Reuben said this that he might rid him out of their hands and bring him back to ‎his father.‎

(Ibid. 42:37): "And Reuven said to his father: 'You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him [Benjamin] back to you… (38): And he said: 'My son shall not go down with you.'" The Midrash relates that Yaakov said about him [Reuven]: "He is a foolish bechor [(first-born)]. Are they his sons and not my sons?" The words of Reuven must, indeed, be understood, but, essentially, this is the explanation: Whatever issues from a man's mouth [(aside from what relates to fear of the L-rd, which is a function of man's free will)] is brought about by Heaven. This is the thrust of Chazal's statement: "All is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven." And the Midrash tells us that this ejaculation of Reuven's [("You may kill my two sons, etc.")] was fulfilled in his sons, [i.e., descendants], Dathan and Aviram [(in the episode of Korach)]. And, in truth, he [Reuven] himself was the cause of this, by saying (Bereshith 27:32): "Cast him into this pit which is in the desert." The act was extremely evil, for which reason they [Dathan and Aviram] descended, living, to Sheol, to the midst of the pit. As to his intent, being good, as it is written (Bereshith, Ibid.): "in order to rescue him from their hands to return him to his father," he merited that one of his descendants, On ben Peleth, be saved, by returning in repentance to His Father in heaven (wherefore he was called "On," his being in aninuth ["mourning" (for his sin)] all of his life, as Chazal have stated.

When Reuben heard this, he tried to rescue him from their hands. “Let us not take his life,” he said. “Do not shed any blood. Throw him into this cistern here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him.” Reuben said this to rescue him from them and take him back to his father. (Gen. 37:21–22)

He handed her roasted grain… “Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Maryon said: The verse comes to teach that if a person performs a mitzvah he should perform it wholeheartedly. Had Reuben known that the blessed Holy One was writing: “Reuben heard and rescued him (Joseph) from their hands,” (Gen. 37:21) he would have taken his brother to their father on his shoulder. Had Aaron known that the blessed Holy One was dictating in his regard: “Behold, he is coming out to meet you” (Exodus 4:14), Aaron would have emerged to meet Moses with drums and dancing. Had Boaz known that the Holy One blessed be He was dictating in his regard: “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate, was sated, and there was some left over,” he would have fed her fattened calves.” (Ruth Rabbah 5:6) It is possible to explain this statement, by beginning with Rabbi Yaakov Hagiz’s, (Jacob Hagiz (1620–1674) was a Jewish Talmudist born of a Sephardi Jewish family at Fes, Morocco. Ḥagiz's teacher was David Karigal who afterward became his father-in-law. In about 1646, Ḥagiz went to Italy for the purpose of publishing his books, and remained there until after 1656, supporting himself by teaching. Samuel di Pam, rabbi at Livorno, calls himself a pupil of Ḥagiz. About 1657, Ḥagiz left Livorno for Jerusalem, where the Vega brothers of Livorno had founded a beit midrash for him and where he became a member of the rabbinical college. (Wikipedia)) explanation in Korban Mincha: (S. 115) “Israel heard. The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (The full verse states, “While Israel stayed in that land, Reuben went and lay with Bilhah, his father’s concubine; and Israel found out. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” (JPS translation)) (Gen. 35:22) the sages state in a Midrash on Parshat V’Zot HaBerachah that Jacob had been given the Torah and in this way Reuben was saved because he was exempt for having had relations with his father’s concubine. This is what the verse states, “Israel heard,” that he had the status of an Israelite and therefore, “The sons of Jacob were twelve in number.” If the sons had the status of Noahides, then Reuben would have been put to death for this act and there would not have been twelve sons of Jacob. That is what is stated, “The heritage (morashah) of the congregation of Jacob,” (Deut. 33:4) There was already a heritage or a tradition of betrothal for Jacob and his children that marriage is only finalized through chuppah. (Therefore, the concubine was not judged as one of Jacob’s wives according to Jewish law.) “Then he became King in Jeshurun,” (Deut. 33:5) this refers to Moses who gather all the heads of the people (and officially taught them the laws), “Numerous people is the glory of a king,” (Prov. 14:28) This is the reason for the statement, “May Reuben live and not die,” (Deut. 35:6) Because Rebuen was judged as a Israelite, he did not die as a Noahide. This is the essence of his explanation in short. In my youth I wrote a treatise called Rosh David (P. 36) containing the opinion of Rabbi Chagiz, expressed in the introduction of Parashat Derachim. (A work containing twenty-six homiletic treatises on various subjects, by Rabbi Yehuda Rosanes. He (1657-1727) was a Rabbi of Constantinople. On account of his knowledge of Arabic and Turkish he was appointed by the government as chief rabbi of the Ottoman empire. He took a very active part in condemning and denouncing the Shabbethaians, and was one of the signers of an appeal to the German communities to oppose the movement. This work and others were edited & published by his devoted pupil Rabbi Yaakov Culi, author of Meam Loez. (https://seforimcenter.com)) I explained all of these verses there but I never found the Midrash on V’Zot HaBerachah that Rabbi Hagiz mentions. However, what was written on, “The heritage of the congregation of Jacob,” was explained there. And according to this one can explain, “O offspring of Israel, His servant;” (offspring of Israel, His servant, O descendants of Jacob, His chosen ones.) (I Chron. 16:13) Israel - our forefather Jacob - received Torah and passed it onto his children so that Reuben was not guilty of sin and there would still be the 12 sons of Jacob. Some have written in homilies that Joseph the righteous assumed that they had the status of Noahides as the author of Parashat Derachim and others wrote. If this were so then Reuben would have been deserving of he death penalty (God Forbid!). While it was Reuben’s righteous intention to save Joseph, he didn’t try hard enough, because he was afraid that he would find out that the law was according to Joseph and that they had the status of a Noahides. If he saved Joseph he might have brought evil upon himself. If he had known, however, that God would write that he would save Joseph from the brothers, in other words, similar to what the Torah states, “He tried to save him from them,” (Gen 37:21) and also, “Intending to save him from them in order to return him to his father.” (Gen. 37:22) (he might have acted differently.) His only intention was to bring Joseph back. This is what the Holy One wrote about him and it proves that he had the status of an Israelite for whom good intentions are joined to actions. (See BT Kiddushin 40a: “The Holy One, Blessed be He, links a good thought to an action, as it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Mal. 3:16). The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the phrase “and that think upon His name”? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah, as he is among those that think upon His name.” This however only applies to Jews and not non-Jews.) If, however, Reuven was considered a Noahide, then good intentions would not be joined to his actions. Since the blessed Holy One wrote that he had the status of Israelites, he had no fear that they would say that he had the status of a Noahide as Joseph claimed, and that he was guilty (of having relations with his father’s concubine). Then he would have carried Joseph on his shoulders back to Jacob even though Joseph thought the law was different. Still, Reuben saved him because he knew that one who saves an Israelite is as if he saved the whole world. And that is why one who performs a commandment should do so with a whole heart and not worry about suspicions or other matters. And we have heard about Reuben with whom damage would have resulted had he acted on his thoughts when they (the brothers) sold Joseph resulting in a step between him and death, and all the other events that would have come to pass. One might conclude that Reuben should have acted on his good intentions and not worried about those who disagreed. But what if one’s action will not lead to such damages; should one worry about “the scorn of the complacent?” (Ps. 123:4) The Midrash brings proof to show that a person should still perform mitzvot with a wholeheart even if there is no danger of damage as in the case of Aaron. It is possible that Aaron thought that Israelites were considered Noahides when he saw what his father, Amram, did. Amram was one of the righteous people of his generation. He was one of four who died due to Adam’s sin with the serpent (and not because of his own sin). (BT Shabbat 55b) He married his own aunt, Yocheved. According to Targum Yonatan when he divorced her she married Elitzafan ben Parnach but in the end, he remarried her and they gave birth to Moses. All of these acts would later be forbidden by Torah law. As a result, Aaron concluded that the Israelites had the status of Noahides until they received the Torah. Amram could take his aunt as a wife, divorce her and then take her back as a wife because the Torah had not yet been given. However, in order not to cause the scorn of the masses, Aaron didn’t want to go out to meet his brother with “drums and dance” which would have given the people an excuse to talk about his family or Moses. That is why he went out to greet Moses privately. Even though there was no danger or suffering involved in this matter, he thought that it was better to worry about scorn of the people. Thus we learn that even in this situation, it is better to perform the commandment with a full heart... If Aaron had known that God would write, “he (Aaron) will be happy in his heart to see you.” (Ex. 4:14) he would have known that they had the status of Israelites and his analysis was incorrect. Amram had acted according to the word of God, as the Zohar comments on the verse, “A man from the house of Levi…” (Ex. 2:1), then Aaron would have gone forth with timbrels and dancing (when meeting his brother), to fulfill the commandment properly. Further we also learn this lesson from Boaz. It occurred to Boaz and he saw through the Holy Spirit that he would marry Ruth. Further Ruth said, “Why are you so kind as to single me out, when I am a foreigner?” (Ruth 2:10) The sages comment, “To single me out,” in the way of all the earth. Boaz only gave her a little grain because he was fearful that people would say that he didn’t do so for the sake of a commandment but rather out of desire for her and in order to marry her. If Boaz had known that God would write about him, “He handed her roasted grain, and she ate her fill and had some left over,” so that it appeared as of he gave her a extra in order to satisfy her hunger, when in fact he gave her just a little bit but it was blessed, as the sage explain. But the blessed Holy One wrote that he gave her enough for her satisfaction. But if he really valued the mitzvah he would have given her fatted chickens! Further it states the details; it states that he said to her”“Come over here and partake of the meal, and dip your morsel in the vinegar.” and afterwards it states that he gave her roasted grains, all as part of a single commandment to feed her. Had Boaz known how important this mitzvah was, he would have fed her fatted chickens.

A Midrashic approach to this verse (Bereshit Rabbah 99,7) “Shimon and Levi are brothers when it comes to taking revenge for the rape of Dinah, but when it came to their behaviour vis-a-vis Joseph they certainly did not act as brothers.” By using the word מכרותיהם, Yaakov alluded to the sale of Joseph i.e. מכירה. We should remember that the four brothers Reuven, Shimon, Levi, and Yehudah were the senior brothers. Seeing that the Torah reported that both Reuven and Yehudah considered the sale of Joseph as inappropriate (compare 37,22 and 37,26), this leaves Shimon and Levi as the ones who must have suggested that Joseph be sold. This explains why when the brothers went to Egypt, Joseph detained only Shimon.

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

(Bereshit 37:21–22, 24)

Penitence and Redemption Where was evidence of Reuben’s conscience-stricken spirit? Witness Reuben’s eagerness to save his brother Joseph’s life. Years after Reuben’s sin (we cannot say exactly when), Joseph, favorite son of Jacob, dreamed of the future. He fashioned himself as head of the brothers, envisioning his role as central and superior within the family hierarchy – even his parents would be subject to his leadership. Joseph shared his dreams with his family, perhaps in the naiveté of youth, perhaps to provoke, and the brothers banded against him. Whipped into jealous frenzy, the brothers conspired to kill Joseph as they saw him approaching from afar. Reuben, whose role Joseph threatened directly and whom we therefore would expect to see heading this cabal, instead jumped to intercede: “Let us not take his life!…Do not shed his blood, rather cast him into this pit in the wilderness, but do not touch him yourselves” (Genesis 37:21–22).

(From this point to the end of the tractate is an aggadic addendum.) The greatest man among the Anakim (Josh. 14, 15.) —among the Anakim refers to our father Abraham whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men; his eating and drinking were of a similar proportion, equal to those of seventy-four men; so too his strength. What did he do? (This is probably a reference to Gen. 25, 6, But unto the sons of the concubines … Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away … eastward, unto the east country.) He removed the sixteen (So GRA in accordance with Gen. 25, 2-4. V, M and H incorrectly ‘seventeen’.) sons of Keturah, built for them a walled city of iron and settled them in it. The sun never penetrated into it because it was exceedingly high, so Abraham handed to them disks of precious stones and pearls of which use will be made (So GRA. V, M and H read, ‘and they will be used’.) in the hereafter when the Holy One, blessed be He, will cause the sun and moon to be confounded, as it is written, When the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, (Is. 24, 23.) because use will be made of these [disks as luminaries]. Og (King of Bashan; Deut. 3, 11.) is identical with Eliezer, (Abraham’s servant; cf. Gen. 15, 2, XXIV, 2ff.) and [he was so huge that] he could hide Abraham’s feet in the palm of his hand. Once he was rebuked [by Abraham] and from fright his tooth fell out. Abraham picked it up and made ivory beds of it in which he slept. Others say that he made of it a chair which he used (lit. ‘and sat in it’.) all his life. Who gave him to Abraham? Nimrod. (Mentioned in Gen. 10, 8ff.) Og went and built sixty cities, the smallest of which was sixty miles high, as it is stated, Threescore cities, all the region of Argob. (Deut. 3, 4.) And what did he eat? A thousand oxen and the same [number of] other animals, and his drink consisted of a thousand measures. A (So GRA. V, M and H read ‘and what was the’.) drop of his semen weighed thirty-six pounds. (V and H add ‘and so for all generations’, which makes no sense.) It was taught: What did our father Jacob do when his sons brought him the coat [stained] with blood? (Cf. Gen. 37, 31ff.) He did not believe them at all. Whence do we infer this? For it is written, But he refused to be comforted, (ibid. 35.) because no consolations are acceptable for a living person. One, however, who is dead passes naturally from the mind, (lit. ‘he is forgotten from the heart of his own accord’.) as it is stated, I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. (Ps. 31, 13.) What then did he do? He proceeded to make a test with sheaves, (GRA transposes the order of V, M and H by putting the test of the sheaves before that of the stones, and omits ‘according to the first opinion’.) writing upon them the respective names of the tribes, their constellations and the months, and said to them, ‘I order you to prostrate yourselves before Levi because he wears the Urim and Thummim’, (Cf. Ex. 28, 30.) but they did not stand up. ‘Before Judah who is king’, but they did not stand up; but when he mentioned Joseph to them, they all stood up and bowed before Joseph. But it was not yet quite clear that he was alive. So Jacob went to the mountains, hewed twelve stones, arranged them in a row, and wrote on each the name of its tribe, the name of its constellation and the name of its month. On one stone he wrote ‘Reuben, lamb, Nisan’ (The name of the tribe, constellation and month.) and similarly on every stone. He began from Simeon and said to them, ‘I order you to stand up for Reuben’, but they did not stand up. ‘For Simeon’, but they did not stand up. ‘For every tribe’, but the stones did not stand up. As soon, however, as he mentioned the name of Joseph to them, they stood up at once and bowed before Joseph’s stone. (The translation follows the text of GRA.) For this reason, all the tribes were written on Joseph’s stone. Similarly, all Israel are called by Joseph’s name, as it is stated, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. (Ps. 80, 2 where Joseph is a synonym of all Israel.) So also all the heads of the families of the priests and Levites, [e.g.] Eliashib, (Neh. 3, 1.) because of the phrase lahashibo ’el ’abiw; (In the story of Joseph (Gen. 37, 22), E.V. to restore him to his father. The name Eliashib is broken up in three parts corresponding in sound and meaning to these three Heb. words. From ‘For this reason’ to ’abiw is the reading of GRA. V and H have instead: ‘but from the mishmaroth, Eliashib the priest’.) Elḳanah, (Connected with ḳanah, ‘he bought’.) because Potiphar had bought him [as it is stated,] And Joseph ms brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar … bought him. (Gen. 39, 1. V inserts in parentheses, And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Ẓaphenath, paneah, etc. (ibid. XLI, 45), which has no relevance to the subject.) When Rebekah left her father’s house (Cf. ibid. XXIV, 59ff.) she was three years old, (V, M and H add ‘and three days’.) because it is customary among kings, when a daughter is born to them, to hear of it after three days; (H reads ‘after three years and three days’.) but as her father did not hear [of her birth] he did not defile her up to that time; and now a miracle happened to her in that her father died so that he should not defile her, as it is written, Neither had any man known her, (Gen. 24, 16.) and by man only her father could be meant, (From ‘he did not’ to ‘meant’ is GRA’s reading. V, M and H read: ‘therefore a miracle happened to her that she should not be defiled’.) for such was the practice of the Arameans to lie with their virgin daughters after they were three years of age, (‘After … age’ is inserted by GRA; omitted in V, M and H.) and then to give them away in marriage. (V, M and H add: ‘on account of that which is written, Neither had any man known her, and by man only her father could be meant’.) Dinah was six years old when she bore Asenath from [her association with] Shechem, (Cf. Gen. 34.) corresponding to (lit. ‘the number of’.) the six years which Jacob served Laban in payment for the flock, (ibid. XXXI, 41.) thus completing (lit. ‘until’.) the twenty years of his service. [The Archangel] Michael then descended and took her away to the house of Potiphar. From here onward let the man of understanding increase knowledge. (From ‘completing the twenty years’ to ‘knowledge’ is GRA’s text. V and M have instead: ‘and he added twenty years, because he died. From this point onwards let the man of understanding increase knowledge. And Michael descended and led her to Potiphar’s house’.)

Reuvein said to them, Do not commit bloodshed. Throw him into this pit which is in the wilderness, and do not lay a hand on him. His purpose was to rescue him from their hands, to bring him back to his father.

And Reuben said, Let us not shed innocent blood. Throw him into this pit in the wilderness, but the hand of the slayer stretch not forth against him; because he would deliver him from their hand, and restore him to his father.

את כתונת הפסים, “the striped coat;” because it had been the garment which had caused all the hatred and jealousy.

THAT THEY STRIPPED. Va-yafshitu (that they stripped) (Va-yafshitu is a hifil. Hifil is the causative form. Hence I.E. renders it: and they caused him to strip (Krinsky, Weiser and Cherez). For an alternate interpretation see Filwarg.) is a causative. They told him to take the coat off by himself. (Hence they caused him to strip.) Ketonet (coat) in Hebrew refers to a garment worn next to the skin. The brothers thus stripped Joseph of his garments and threw him naked into the pit. (According to Cherez, I.E. interprets the verse as follows: that they stripped Joseph of his coat (ketonet), i.e., of the garment worn next to the skin, and also of the coat of many colors. Joseph was thus left standing naked (Cherez). Cf. Rashi. However, Cherez’s interpretation seems forced. It appears that I.E. identified the ketonet passim with the garment worn next to the skin.)

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, They stripped Joseph of his tunic, etc. According to the plain meaning of the verse the word כתנתו refers to his shirt, whereas the additional words את כתנת הפסים refer to his outer garment, the one his father had made for him. In order to understand the verse thoroughly we have to know why the Torah did not write ואת כתנת הפסים, "and the striped coat."

The Torah wanted us to understand that the brothers did not want to strip Joseph naked. Their main concern was to remove the striped coat which had aroused their jealousy. The Torah tells us that when they began to strip the striped coat off him they were so angry at him that they inadvertently also removed his shirt at the same time. The Torah describes that Joseph was left naked by writing ויפשיטו את יוסף את כתנתו, "they stripped him naked by unintentionally removing his shirt with his striped coat."

The Torah adds אשר עליו, "which he wore on top," to further underline that the striped coat was an outer garment. In spite of this, in their frenzy they removed all his garments.

ויהי..את כתנת הפסים, the letter ה at the beginning of the word הפסים, referring to a specific garment, is justified seeing that we had previously been told את כתנתו, “his tunic,” i.e. the same tunic.

את כתונת הפסים, the only reason why these words have been inserted here is to remind the reader of what had been the cause of the entire tragic episode of fraternal hatred. However, if the Torah had not added these words, we would have been misled. The fact that the Torah describes the brothers sending the blood-spattered tattered remains of this tunic to their father (verse 33) was designed to deceive their father into believing that what happened to Joseph had nothing to do with his father having had this garment made for him and the brothers having resented this. The Torah does not want us, the readers, to be misled as the brothers had succeeded in misleading their father into thinking that he had become the victim of a wild animal.

את כתנתו HIS GARMENT — this means his shirt.

את כתנת הפסים THE LONG SLEEVED GARMENT — this was the garment that his father had given him additional to those of his brothers (Genesis Rabbah 84:16).

Das ויקחהו steht erst nach dem Ausziehen des Rockes. Er hat überhaupt keinen Widerstand geleistet. Nur durch Bitten suchte er sie zu erweichen, wie wir aus Kap. 42, 21 wissen.

This is an additional one that his father gave him in excess of what was given to the brothers. Re’m explains that it is all one garment. He was wearing only one כתונת, which was of פסים, and the verse reads as follows: “They stripped him of his כתונת.” Which כתונת? “The פסים כתונת that he had on.” It cannot mean that he wore two כתונות, one top of the other, because only the garment touching the skin is called כתונת. But Maharshal writes: It seems to me not so. Rather, he had on two כתונות, one on top of the other. The first was on his skin, so that sweat should not ruin the כתונת of פסים. They stripped off both garments at once by grasping the bottom one and removing both. That is why it says אשר עליו (“that was on it”), referring to the other garment on which the פסים כתונת was on top of. The reason they grasped the bottom one was to show him that they were not doing this because his father gave him an additional כתונת of פסים. Rather, it was because of his bad reports and his dreams [that he told his father].

It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him.

ויפשיטו את יוסף את כותנתו, “They stripped Joseph of his tunic.” Rashi explains the word כתונת as “shirt,” an undergarment. This is a difficult explanation, as the question is how they could remove an undergarment before removing his outer garment first, the famous striped coat. The answer usually given to this question is that it is normal for someone robbing someone else of his clothing to pull all his garments off him in one motion, and to then turn these garments inside out, beginning to separate them, so that the undergarment is separated first. Alternately, travelers have a habit of covering their outer garments with their undergarments as a form of protection for them while they are on the journey encountering obstacles that might damage the costly outer garments. Personally, I believe that the Torah speaks of only one garment, describing his fancy outer garment as also his undergarment, and the fact that he wore it visibly when planning to visit his brothers inflamed their hatred even more.

“They stripped Joseph” [37:23]. The brothers pulled off Joseph’s silk shirt.

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him” (Genesis 37:23). “It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic” – Rabbi Elazar said: He came with praise. (Joseph came with praise for his brothers, i.e., in a conciliatory state of mind, as implied in the verse: “Joseph came to his brothers.”) “They stripped Joseph” – this is the cloak. “Of his tunic” – this is his shirt. “The fine tunic” – this is the tunic. “That was upon him” – this is his undergarment. “They took him [vayikaḥuhu] and cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). “They took him [vayikaḥuhu]” – it is written “he took him [vayikaḥehu].” Who was it? It was Simeon. When did [Joseph] repay him? It was later: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). “And cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” – there was no water in it, but there were serpents and scorpions in it. There were two pits, (This is based on the fact that the verse mentions “the pit” twice. ) one filled with stones and one filled with fiery snakes and scorpions. Rav Aḥa said: “The pit was empty” – Jacob’s pit was emptied. (This is a reference to Jacob’s sons. ) “There was no water in it” – there were in it no matters of Torah, which are likened to water, just as it says: “Ho, everyone thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1). It is written: “If a man is found abducting any of his brethren…[and he sold him, that thief shall die]” (Deuteronomy 24:7), and you are selling your brother?

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

ASHER’ A PRINCE SINNETH. “The word asher is [here] derived from the expression ashrei (happy). Happy is the generation whose prince brings an offering for atonement [even] for his error. (Our Rashi adds: “How much the more certain is it that he will do penance for any sin he committed wilfully.”) [Torath Kohanim]. (Torath Kohanim, Vayikra Chobah 5:1.) 23. ‘O’ HIS SIN BE KNOWN TO HIM — ‘if’ his sin be known to him. There are many verses where the word o (or) is used in the sense of im (if), and conversely where im is used in the sense of o. Similarly, ‘o’ it be known that the ox was wont to gore (Exodus 21:36.) [means ‘if’ it be known, and the word o which ordinarily means ‘or’ is here used in the sense of ‘im,’ meaning ‘if’].” Thus the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented: “The sense of asher nasi yechta is as if the expression were inverted, making it read: asher yechta nasi (if ‘he who sins is the prince’), and it is connected with [the section] above, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err. (Verse 13.) It is thus as if He had stated here: ‘and if he who sins is the prince [and he knows it of himself], or his sin be made known to him by others.’ Scripture, however, adopts a short form of expression, [omitting to state ‘that he knows the sin himself,’ or that it was made known to him ‘through others’], but the meaning is that either it becomes known to the prince by himself that he sinned, ‘o hoda eilav’ (or it be made known to him) — i.e., that another man who saw him doing it informed him of it. The grammatical form of hoda is then a past causative [like hodi’a — a man ‘informed’ him], this being similar to ‘v’heitzar lecha’ (Deuteronomy 28:25.) [the meaning of which is as if it said ‘v’heitzir lecha’ in the causative, i.e., and he will besiege thee]. The subject, however, is missing [for it should have said here, or ‘another man’ inform him, and there it should have stated, and ‘the enemy’ will besiege thee], just as ‘asher’ bore her to Levi” (Numbers 26:59.) [which should have read ‘asher ishto’ (whose wife) bore her to Levi]. [All these are the words of Ibn Ezra.]. But there is no need for all this, since the uses of the word asher are many. In some cases it indicates time, such as: ‘ka’asher’ (when) Joseph came unto his brethren; (Genesis 37:23.) ‘ka’asher’ (when) they had eaten up the corn, (Ibid., 43:2.) and the like. Similarly, here too [asher is like ka’asher and indicates time]: ‘when’ a prince sinneth, with the kaf of cognizance [which would make it ka’asher — “when”] missing. So also, The blessing, ‘asher’ ye shall hearken unto the commandments of the Eternal, (Deuteronomy 11:27.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye shall hearken. ‘Asher’ ye have seen the Egyptians today, ye shall see them again no more, (Exodus 14:13.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) ye have seen them [today ye shall see them no more]. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread ‘asher’ I commanded thee, (Ibid., 34:18.) means ‘ka’asher’ (when) I commanded thee. At times this word [asher] is missing [not a kaf but] a beth. Thus: And also Maacah his mother he [King Asa of Judah] removed from being queen, ‘asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah (I Kings 15:13.) means ‘ba’asher’ she made an abominable image for an Asherah, which denotes “because,” just like, ‘ba’asher’ (because) thou art his wife. (Genesis 39:9.) The expression o hoda eilav [is thus not a causative, as Ibn Ezra would have it, which would make it to mean “or that it was made known to him by another person;” rather, it] refers to the guilt, stating that when a person will do any one of all the things which the Eternal his G-d hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty, (Verse 22 here.) and deserving of punishment, or it be known to him and he will achieve atonement by means of an offering. The sense of the verse is thus: “he will either be guilty [and deserving of punishment], or bring an offering and he will be forgiven.” The reason for the expression: the Eternal his G-d, is to state that even though he is the king, and the lord upon whom there is no fear of mortal man, he is yet to fear the Eternal his G-d, for it is He who is the Lord of lords. (Deuteronomy 10:17.) Similarly, that he (the king) may learn to fear the Eternal his G-d, (Ibid., 17:19.) means that the king is to take to heart [the knowledge] that there is a Supreme One above him, Who is his G-d and in Whose power is his life and kingdom.

When I applied my heart. This “כַּאֲשֶׁר” is not used as an expression of an example, as in, “as כַּאֲשֶׁר he did, so shall it be done,” (Vayikra 24:19. ) rather it is an expression of time, as in, “When כַּאֲשֶׁר Yoseif came,” (Bereishis 37:23. ) [and as in,] “when כַּאֲשֶׁר they finished eating, etc.” (Ibid. 43:2. ) This too is so, When כַּאֲשֶׁר I applied my heart “to know, to explore, etc.,” (Above 7:25. ) then, “I saw all the works of God.”

Most significant for us in the Yosef story’s opening scene is that he has his clothes taken off by others (Bereshit 37:23). (Bereshit 37:23.) In contrast to his future encounters with clothing as well as in clear contrast to Tamar, Yosef appears unready to take them off himself. Not only that; according to several commentators, the choice of words here indicates that the struggle with Yosef over his tunic was so intense that it required his brothers to rip off all of his other clothes as well. (Op. cit. note 215.) In this way, Yosef was telling his brothers that separating him from his clothing was unthinkable and that the attempt to do so was, in actual fact, tantamount to violating his very essence.

When Yoseif came to his brothers, they stripped him of his coat, the long, colorful coat that he had on.

And when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his garment, the figured garment that was on him,

This is the true meaning of what the Mishnah in ‎‎Avot 6,11 tells us when the author states that everything ‎the Lord has created has as its objective the enhancing of His ‎glory. Maimonides in the Moreh Nevuchim when explaining ‎the line in our prayers about G’d being ‎יוצר אור ובורא חושך‎, ‎‎“fashioning light, while having created the element of darkness,” ‎explains the word ‎ברא‎, as related to the word ‎בור‎, as in Genesis ‎‎37,24 ‎והבור רק אין בו מים‎, “the pit was empty and did not contain ‎any water;” in other words, by withdrawing light there remains ‎darkness. This “darkness” would be what is left from the original ‎chaos, ‎תהו ובוהו‎, of which the Torah speaks in the first verse of ‎Genesis prior to G’d creating light. In spite of this ‎commentary by Maimonides, what the Mishnah meant refers ‎only to the creatures. i.e. man, to whom G’d had given ‎בחירה‎, the ‎ability to make their own decisions as to whether they would live ‎their lives in accordance with the wishes of the Creator or not. ‎When man rises above the temptations offered in this world and ‎chooses to serve his Creator this adds to G’d’s glory. We know that by carrying out G’d’s will as expressed by the ‎commandments He gave us in the Torah, we establish a “lifeline” ‎to Him, and as the Talmud says in B’rachot 18, the ‎righteous are considered as “great,” because they are called ‎‎“alive” even after their bodies have already been interred. The ‎same is not true for the wicked, who our sages describe as “dead” ‎even while still walking around on earth. The wicked, by choosing ‎a path which eventually results in their forfeiting their afterlife, ‎have already identified themselves with “death,” even while ‎onlookers do not yet realize this. [We hardly need any ‎proof for his after reminding ourselves that Esau declined the ‎benefits of birthright for precisely this consideration (Genesis ‎‎25,32). Ed.]‎

"And they took him and threw him into a pit" (Bereishis 37:24). The phrase "and they took him" might seem redundant. It signifies their attempt to assume Yosef's role, as indicated by "they sat and ate bread." Though Yosef is the provider, they rejected his leadership and took his place. Yosef was destined to reach a higher level, but the brothers retained their positions, with Binyamin filling Yosef's role, as noted in the Zohar. The brothers couldn't sustain Yosef's elevated level, leading them to bring negative reports about him to their father. Yosef's severe testing was necessary, as Hashem elevates a person only after testing them. His apparent descent was actually for future elevation—“a descent for the sake of ascent” (ירידה לצורך עליה).

It states in the Mishnah, (Mishnah Avot 2:1) “Rebbi said: which is the straight path that a person should choose for himself? That which is honorable to himself and brings him honor from others. Be careful with a light mitzvah as with a major one, for you do not know the reward of the mitzvot.” The explanation is as follows: “Which is the straight path that a person should choose-שיבור” may be interpreted as, “Which is the straight path that a person should avoid,” for the term SheYavor-שיבור also means, “empty,” as in the verse, (Genesis 37:24) “And the pit-בור was empty,” which is to be avoided. It then continues and answers, “That which honorable to himself.” That is, he does the mitzvah in a hidden manner so that others should not know about it, but in his heart, he thinks to himself that he is an exemplary servant of HaShem, and is proud of it. This is certainly so regarding a person who does mitzvot openly, “to bring honor from others.” This refers to a person who fulfills the mitzvot openly to receive honor from others, that is, so that others should consider him to be God fearing. Both these characteristics must be avoided.

אין בו מים, “there was no water in it;” the Torah mentions this to tell the reader that if the pit had been filled with water the brothers would not have thrown him into it, as it would have been equivalent to drowning him with their own hands. They had already ruled out doing something like that, (verse 27).

והבור רק אי בו מים, “the pit was empty, not containing any water.” Rashi comments that this is to tell us that while there was no water in the pit in which he could have drowned, there were other hazardous inhabitants in that pit such as snakes and scorpions. (based on B’reshit Rabbah 84,16.) This interpretation is based on the principle that when two negatives follow one another this indicates that we are being told something positive, even if not beneficial. It would have sufficed to describe the pit as simply: “empty.” If you were to ask why did it have to refer to the presence of scorpions? What hint is there of that? Maybe there were merely stones inside the pit? The expression רק for empty, instead of ריק means that it was empty on occasion but filled with water at other times. Scorpions take refuge there when it has been emptied from water.

ויקחהו, “they took, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,15 use the absence of the letter ו behind the letter ח in ויקחהו, i.e. only one person actually seized Joseph to surmise that the person in question was Shimon. This is why later on (Genesis 42,24) Joseph chose to imprison only Shimon.

והבור ריק, אין בו מים, “and the pit was empty, it did not contain any water.” Even if it did contain some water it would still qualify for the description “empty;” this is why the additional words “there was no water in it,” mean that there was absolutely no water in it. Our sages in Shabbat 22, however, use these words to deduce that whereas here was no water in the pit, i.e. that Joseph could not drown in it, to mean that there were other dangerous inhabitants in that pit such as vipers, etc. The reason the sages in the Talmud interpreted the verse in this way is that the verse actually contains two limitations. The first such limitation are the words “and the pit was empty; the second limitation are the words: “there was no water in it.” Whenever we find two limitations the rule is that there was something compensating for these limitations, i.e. deadly dangers other than water. Rabbeinu Tam, one of the Tossaphists, explained that the reason the sages picked examples such as deadly snakes as the inhabitants of that pit Joseph was thrown in may have been derived from the Torah saying in Deut. 8,15 במדבר הגדול והנורא נחש שרף ועקרב וצמאון אשר אין מים בו, “through the great and awesome wilderness of snakes, fiery serpent, and scorpion; and thirst where there was no water.” The absence of water in the desert is contrasted there with the presence of deadly snakes. Nachmanides writes: the snakes in the pit were concealed in holes which were not visible to people looking into it. Had the brothers noted these snakes and observed that they did not harm Joseph they would have realized that Joseph enjoyed the special protection of G’d and that He had performed a miracle on his account. They would not have dared lay a hand on the person whom G’d had so obviously selected for a special role. We observe the presence of such considerations elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Daniel 6,23 where the miraculous escape of Daniel from the den of lions told the king that “G’d had sent an angel and shut the lions’ mouth so that they did not even wound him because merit was found for me before Him.” Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 understands the wording as allegorical. The word “empty” was a simile for Yaakov’s reservoir of spiritual powers being drained through his favorite son being dumped into the pit, whereas the words “there was no water in it,” refer to the absence of the words of Torah which have often been compared to the life-giving properties of water. They base themselves on Isaiah 58,4 “come O thirsty one, go to the source of water!” The brothers were unaware of what would later on be written in the Torah (Deut. 24,7) “If someone be discovered who has sold (kidnapped) a member of his brethren the Children of Israel, and he enslaves him...that kidnapper shall die.” The brothers had thus made themselves guilty of a potentially capital offence.

ויקחהו, there is a letter ו missing in this word, making it appear as if only one brother took him. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,16 this is an allusion to who the brother was who seized Joseph and threw him into the pit. It was Shimon, which was the reason why later on Joseph locked up Shimon as a hostage (42,24 ויקח מאתם את שמעון, he took Shimon from them.)

אין בו מים. If there had been water in the pit, Joseph would have drowned and throwing him into the pit would have been outright murder. The reason why the Torah mentions that there was no water in the pit, having already said that the pit was empty, והבור ריק, could be that there was sticky mud inside it, as for instance in Jeremiah 38,6 where the King’s servants threw the prophet into טיט, meaning a slime pit. That pit is also described as devoid of water, although Jeremiah is described as sinking into the mud. However, it did not cause his death. The allegorical explanation of the sequence of the words in our verse is well known, i.e. though water, one lethal ingredient, was not present in that pit, other potentially worse dangers such as scorpions, etc., were. If this explanation corresponds to the facts, throwing Joseph into such a pit was no better than killing him. The brothers had no way of knowing that G’d would save him by a miracle, i.e. that the scorpions and snakes would not attack him.

אין בו מים. If the pit had been full of water the brothers would not have thrown him into the pit, as they then would have been guilty of drowning him, i.e. killing him with their own hands, as it were. They had said themselves “let not our hands be on him.”

והבור רק אין בו מים AND THE PIT WAS EMPTY, THERE WAS NO WATER IN IT — Since it states, “the pit was empty”, do I not know that “there was no water in it”? What then is the force of “there was no water in it”? Water, indeed it did not contain, but there were serpents and scorpions in it (Shabbat 22a).

No water in it but there were snakes and scorpions in it. Rashi deduces [that it had snakes and scorpions] because it is written, “The pit was empty.” If sticks and stones or the like were in it, this would not be called empty. But with snakes and scorpions, the pit could well be called empty, as they crawl into the holes and cracks, so the pit looks like it is empty although they are there. [Alternatively], it is derived from a gezeirah shavah. In Devarim 8:15 it is written: “Snake, serpent, and scorpion... there was no water.” Just as there, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions, so too here, “there was no water” describes a pit with snakes and scorpions. But it seems to me that “there was no water” cannot teach us that sticks and stones were there, because what difference would that make? Perforce, it comes to tell us that other dangers were there, and they threw him in nevertheless. (R. Meir Stern) We need not ask: If there were snakes and scorpions in the pit, how was Reuven going to rescue him? The snakes and scorpions would kill him! For the answer is: The brothers did not know about this. They thought the pit did not contain even snakes and scorpions. Otherwise, how could they want to sell him after seeing the miracle Hashem performed for him, that he was not harmed or killed? (Re’m)

They took him and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. It is not known during which season this event transpired. However, given that the brothers had gone out to pasture their flocks, it would seem that this incident occurred at the beginning of the summer, at the very latest. During this time of year, it is still possible to find pits filled with rainwater. Nevertheless, the brothers refrained from drowning Joseph in such a pit. 6

There was no water in it. The pit was twenty cubits deep, so they could not see that it was filled with snakes. That is why his miraculous survival did not cause them to repent.

“Took and threw him into the pit” [37:24]. Simeon took Joseph and threw him into a pit in which there was no water, but there were snakes in it. However, the brothers did not see the snakes. That is why the verse says, “the pit was empty, there was no water in it” [37:24]. One asks a question here. If you say that the pit was empty, I would know that it is empty and I would know that there is no water in it. Why does the verse have to say there was no water in it? It is obvious that when it is empty, then I would know that it also doesn’t have water in it. The explanation is that the verse shows us that it was empty of water, but there were snakes in it. If you want to ask that if it is full of snakes, then it is not empty. The explanation is that the snakes had holes in the pit into which they ran, at times. At that time, the pit was empty. That is also why the brothers did not see the snakes. If they had seen them, they would not have thrown Joseph into it. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:24.) As Hizkuni also writes, if there had been water in the pit, they would not have thrown Joseph into it. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:24.)

And in parshat Va-yei-shev (185a), after expounding at length about the great praiseworthiness and the high level of one who is involved with Torah, in both this world and the next, it stated after that: “Come and observe: the person who doesn’t merit to be involved with Torah in this world, and who goes around in darkness, when he leaves this world they take him and force him to enter Gehinnom, the place below where they will not have mercy on him, that is called the ‘raging water pit, the slimy mud’, as it is stated in T’hillim (40:3): ‘He raised me from the raging water pit, from the slimy mud…’. And because of this, what is written about one who doesn’t involve himself with Torah in this world and who defiles himself with the defilements of the world? ‘And they took him and cast him into the pit’ (Bereshit 37:24)—This is Gehinnom, the place where those who don’t involve themselves with Torah are judged. ‘And the pit was bare’—just as he is empty. Why? Because it has no water (Water being a metaphor for Torah, per Yeshayahu 55:1: “Ho, everyone who is thirsty, go to the water…”.) within it. And "water" is non other than Torah (as is written in Bava Kama chapter 2). And come and observe: how great is the punishment of Torah, for Israel were not exiled from the Holy land for any reason other than they separated themselves from the Torah and abandoned it, this being what is written (Yirmiyahu 9:11): ‘Who is the wise person who will understand…?’—Why did the land perish? God-YHV”H stated: ‘because they abandoned my Torah’.”

"and the earth was uninformed and void" (Gen. 1:2) - [this fear comes] from the side of the tree of good and evil, and this is the empty land, the bad maidservant, similar to the four basic examples of damages, one of which is the pit, similar to the pit [bor] of Yosef, which is the Pit. "And the pit was empty, there is no water in it" (Gen. 37:24). The bad maidservant is the pit, and "the pit" is the male, and we tech regarding this "a boor [bor] cannot fear sin" (Avot 2:5), this is because this boor has no [true] fear of God.

[The fourth exile] is called a pit where an ox has fallen. This is why it is written of Yosef, "The firstling of his herd, grandeur is his" (Deut. 33:17), of him it says, "And they...cast him into a pit" (Gen. 37:24), which is the female; "and the pit was empty" is the male, which is empty, without Torah, but with snakes and scorpions in it. This is the fourth exile, which is a generation of evil people, filled with snakes and scorpions that are scoundrels like snakes and who are scorpions (akrabim) since they uprooted (akru) the words of the sages and give false judgments. Of them it says, "Her adversaries have become the chief" (Eichah 1:5). "And he looked this way and that, and when he saw that there was no man" (Shemot 2:12) of Yisrael among the wicked mixed multitude. This will be at the end of exile. And because of that the end, the time of redemption bores all the way to the great abyss. And the Faithful Shepherd: Tehom [abyss see Gen. 1:2] is Hamavet [the death'] spelled backwards, and death is no other than poverty. It has been clarified up high, before the Tannaim and Amoraim, that they will all descend for your sake into the deep [the fourth exile], to help you.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic, the fine tunic that was upon him” (Genesis 37:23). “It was when Joseph came to his brothers that they stripped Joseph of his tunic” – Rabbi Elazar said: He came with praise. (Joseph came with praise for his brothers, i.e., in a conciliatory state of mind, as implied in the verse: “Joseph came to his brothers.”) “They stripped Joseph” – this is the cloak. “Of his tunic” – this is his shirt. “The fine tunic” – this is the tunic. “That was upon him” – this is his undergarment. “They took him [vayikaḥuhu] and cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). “They took him [vayikaḥuhu]” – it is written “he took him [vayikaḥehu].” Who was it? It was Simeon. When did [Joseph] repay him? It was later: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). “And cast him into the pit, and the pit was empty; there was no water in it” – there was no water in it, but there were serpents and scorpions in it. There were two pits, (This is based on the fact that the verse mentions “the pit” twice. ) one filled with stones and one filled with fiery snakes and scorpions. Rav Aḥa said: “The pit was empty” – Jacob’s pit was emptied. (This is a reference to Jacob’s sons. ) “There was no water in it” – there were in it no matters of Torah, which are likened to water, just as it says: “Ho, everyone thirsty, go to water” (Isaiah 55:1). It is written: “If a man is found abducting any of his brethren…[and he sold him, that thief shall die]” (Deuteronomy 24:7), and you are selling your brother?

Raba expounded: "What is the meaning of the passage (Songs 6, 2) How beautiful are thy steps in sandals. It means. How beautiful were the steps of Israel, when they made a pilgrimage to celebrate the festival. The prince's daughter, daughter of Abraham, our father, who was called a prince; as it is said (Ps. 47, 10) The princes of the people are gathered together, the people of the God of Abraham. Why is the God of Abraham [mentioned], and not the God of Isaac or Jacob? The God of Abraham [is mentioned, because Abraham] was the first proselyte." R. Cahana said that R. Nathan b. Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum: "What is the meaning of the passage (Gen. 37, 24) And the pit was empty; there was no water in it. Since the passage says the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? And what is intimated by saying there was no water? Indeed there was no water, but there were serpents and scorpions in it."

(Fol. 22a) R. Cahana said that R. Nathan b Minyumi expounded in the name of R. Tanchum: "What is meant by the passage (Gen. 37, 24.) And the pit was empty; there was no water in it. Since the text says The pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? And what is intimated by saving There was no water? Indeed there was no water but there were serpents and scorpions in it."

There were two dumb men in the neighborhood of Rabbi, who were sons of the daughter of R. Jochanan b. Gudgada, and others say, sons of his sister, who, when Rabbis entered the house of learning, went in also, shook their heads, and muttered with their lips. Rabbi prayed for them and they were healed; and it was found that they were well versed on Halacha, and on the entire six sections of the Mishnah...

(Gen. 37:24:) THEN THEY TOOK HIM AND CAST HIM INTO THE PIT, BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT. There was no water in it; yet there were snakes and scorpions in it. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 37:24; Shab. 22a.) What did Simeon do? When they had put him within the pit, Simeon commanded them to throw great stones upon him in order to kill him; but, when < Simeon > fell into Joseph's hand, Joseph tossed fattened < fowl > upon him.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

And when Joseph came amongst his brothers he sat down before them; and they took hold ‎upon him and threw him to the ground and stripped off the coat of many colors which was ‎upon him. And they took him and cast him into a pit, and in the pit was no water, but it was full ‎of serpents and scorpions. And Joseph was greatly afraid of the serpents and scorpions, and ‎he cried out with a loud voice, and the Lord hid the serpents and scorpions in the walls of the ‎pit, so that they could do Joseph no harm. And Joseph cried out from the pit unto his brothers, ‎saying: What have I done unto you and what is my sin, and why do you not fear the Lord ‎concerning me? Am I not your bone and flesh and is not Jacob, your father, my father also? ‎Why are ye doing this thing unto me this day, and how will you ever be able to look unto Jacob ‎our father? And he was crying and calling unto his brothers from the midst of the pit, and he ‎said: Oh Judah, and Simeon and Levi, my brothers, raise me from this darksome place where ‎into ye have put me, and come and have mercy upon me this day, ye children of the Lord and ‎sons of my father Jacob ' And supposing that I have sinned against you, are you not the sons of ‎Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who when they saw an orphan they had pity with him, and when ‎they found one hungry they gave him bread to eat, and if he was thirsty they gave him water ‎to drink, and if he was naked they covered him with garments. And how can ye withdraw your ‎compassion from your own brother, of your own flesh and bone, and even if I have sinned ‎against you, surely you ought to do it for the sake of my father. And Joseph spoke all these ‎words from the midst of the pit but his brothers hearkened not nor did they incline their ears ‎to Joseph’s sup plication and he was still crying and weeping in the pit. And Joseph said: Oh ‎that my father knew the thing that my brothers have done unto me and what they said unto ‎me this day. And Joseph’s brothers heard the weeping and lamentation of their brother, and ‎they moved away in order not to hear his crying in the pit. And they seated themselves at a ‎distance of about a bow-shot, and they sat down there to eat.‎

This is an allusion to דין, i.e. Justice. It is not the function of Justice to uproot or to destroy, rather it is the function of Justice to treat each person on his merits. The very letters of the name רבקה reflect this even-handedness of the attribute of Justice. The two letters רק allude to a person who is Reyk, empty of merits, whereas the two letters בה allude to someone who has content. Together this is what Justice is all about. G–d pays man כדרכו כפרי מעלליו, "according to his way with the fruit of his deeds” (Jeremiah 17,10). Abraham alluded to this when he used the word רק when he forbade Eliezer to take Isaac back there. Eliezer, in recognition of that hint, used the word בה when he described the kind of girl he considered suitable as a marriage partner for Isaac. He also referred to Abraham's attribute of חסד when he said: 24,14) בה אדע כי עשית חסד עם אדוני).

Adam ruined this state of affairs by interfering with the סוד היין, the mystical properties of the grapes. [I suppose that this is based on the tree of knowledge having been a grape bearing tree. Ed.] He followed an evil path by squeezing a cluster of grapes (and consuming its juice). Had he not done so, that "wine" would have remained in the state of what our sages call the יין המשומר בענביו, "the wine that remained preserved within its grapes (compare Berachot 34).” In that event he would have been like "the cistern that does not lose a single drop” [hyperbole for total recall, see Avot 2,11. Ed.]. He would have retained all the holiness that had been his when he was created. When Adam sinned, he did not only lose some of his former glory, fall from a "high roof" (to the ground), but he fell into a "very deep pit" (below the ground). This was a בור רק, an empty pit [allusion to the pit Joseph had been thrown in. Genesis 37,24], since it did not even contain the ingredients for the survival of the species. The species was wiped out at the time of the deluge as a direct consequence of Adam having polluted that "drop of sacred semen," and made it "evil smelling." Due to G–d's personal intervention, Noach was saved seeing he was righteous, and the righteous are the foundation of the universe. The present universe was founded by him as a result.

Remember that Abraham's principal attribute was his characteristic of חסד. The mystical element of חסד is found in the מים העליונים, pure unpolluted waters of the Celestial Regions. The attribute of חסד is also the mystical domain of אהבה, love, as we shall explain. Once Abraham had acquired the virtue of חסד he could enter the domain of אהבה, love, and that is why G–d called him אוהבי. We are told in Song of Songs 8,7 that even מים רבים, many waters, cannot extinguish love. The waters referred to are the מקור מים חיים, the source of truly life-giving waters. There are, however, many cisterns, broken and yet filled, which cannot retain the waters in them. In Kabbalistic jargon these are called קליפות; they are alluded to in Genesis 37,24 as והבור רק אין בו מים, "the pit was empty it did not contain any water." We know from Psalms 52,3: חסד אל כל היום, that "G–d's חסד lasts all day long," though we also have a verse in Psalms 7,12 which appears to contradict this, namely א-ל זועם בכל יום, "G–d pronounces doom each day." The answer is simply that G–d pronounces doom over these קליפות, negative forces, reducing them to impotence. This is the חסד G–d performs all day long. Ezekiel 36,25 may have alluded to this when he says: וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם מכל טמאותיכם, "I shall sprinkle on you pure waters and you will be cleansed from all your impurities. These waters wash off the accumulated pollution known as קליפות, the result of sins. It is these waters which are called מעטים, little. The reason that "a little water" is sufficient is that קליפות do not increase or multiply naturally, as opposed to קדושה, which increases and multiplies naturally; that is why מים רבים, many waters, are unable to extinguish the "fire" of love, and love continues forever. The principal aspect of the virtue of kindness is deeply rooted in the mystical domain of those מים רבים discussed above On occasion some of these waters have to be used in order to rinse off the קליפות and to "humble" such outgrowths due to sins. This is why Abraham spoke about "a little water to be taken."

ויהיו בני ראובן בכור ישראל, “The members of the tribe of Reuven, Yaakov’s firstborn were, etc.” The Torah gave the number of members of the tribe of Reuven first, although in the list of encampments it listed Yehudah first, (2,3) seeing that Reuven was the biological firstborn. Shimon was listed next, in accordance with seniority of birth. Gad was listed next as he was the firstborn of Leah’s maidservant. Next the Torah lists the tribes which were grouped around the flag of Yehudah. Issachar and Zevulun who formed part of the army group are listed in that order as part of the camp of Yehudah. Subsequently the Torah lists Ephrayim followed by the tribes who were part of his camp, i.e. Menashe and Binyamin. Finally, the Torah lists Dan followed by Asher and Naftali who were part of his camp and flag. The tribes’ camps (Dan, Asher, Naftali last) are listed in the same order as here when the offerings on the occasion of the inauguration of the Altar in the Tabernacle are recorded in Numbers chapter 7. The number of tribes listed and counted here are 12, seeing Levi is not included and two separate tribes are counted as Joseph. They were encamped facing the four directions East, South, West, North. Each army group comprised three tribes. Among the twelve tribes the tribe of Yehudah and Dan were the ones best known for their bravery; this is why they traveled at the head and at the rear of the Israelites respectively. Both of these tribes have been described at different times as גור אריה, “lion cub” (Genesis 49,9 and Deut. 33,22). The word לגלגלותם, “according to their heads,” an expression used by the Torah only in connection with the tribes of Reuven and Shimon (verse 20 and 22), is one that applied to all the tribes. The reason that it was spelled out only with these two tribes may be that both of these tribes required atonement for sins committed by their respective founding fathers against Yaakov, and this is why the word פקודיו, “its numbered ones,” is also repeated in Shimon’s case, indicating that by now they were on a par with all the other tribes. Perhaps in the case of Shimon that word may not mean “numbered,” but may be a reference to the use of the word in the Ten Commandments, where G’d speaks about “remembering the sins of the fathers to the later generations” (Exodus 20,5). Verse 22 then ought to be translated as follows: “The matters remembered for the tribe of Shimon and his offspring according to their families and their fathers’ houses were, etc.” The words במספר שמות, “according to the number of names,” belong to what follows, to the word פקודיהם. The Torah wished to convey that actually the descendants of Shimon carried the burden of the sin of their founding-father and his part in the sale of Joseph (instigator) and by rights they should have paid for that unatoned for crime. Proof that Shimon had been the instigator of the violence committed against Joseph at the time is the fact that he was the only one detained by Joseph in Egypt after he permitted the other brothers to return and to bring Binyamin to Egypt on their next trip. (Compare Genesis 37,24, 42,24, Bereshit Rabbah 84,16).

השבלים הרקות, here the word הרקות is derived from the word ריק, empty, as in והבור רק אין בו מים, “the pit was empty, it did not contain water.” (Genesis 37,24)

SHED NO BLOOD. Reuben said to them: “I would have been tolerant of you when you thought to kill him by your subtle intrigues, for I too hated him and desired that he be killed by others. But do not spill blood with your hands. Far it be from you!” And Reuben’s intent in all this was to rescue him and restore him to his father. Now Scripture relates that which Reuben told them when they paid heed to him. However, originally he told them other things which they did not accept, as he said to them afterwards, Spoke I not unto you, saying: Do not sin against the child and you would not hear? (Further, 42:22.) Now when he saw that they would not listen to the extent of releasing him, he said to them, “If so, shed no blood with your own hands.” Now Reuben did not say, “Shed not his blood,” [but instead, he said, “Shed no blood,”] in order to make it appear that he is not saying it because he loves him, but in order that they should not spill blood. Thus he taught them that the punishment of he who indirectly causes death is not as great as that of he who personally spills blood. The meaning of the expression, This pit that is in the wilderness, is that this pit is deep and he will not be able to get out of it, and it is in the desert, and if he cries for help there is no one to rescue him as no one passes by there. Now Scripture relates that the pit was empty and did not contain water. (Verse 24 here.) Had there been water in it they would not have drowned him as they had already avoided spilling his blood. Now Rashi writes: “Since it states that the pit was empty, do I not know that there was no water in it? Why then does it say that there was no water in it? It means to state that water indeed was not in it, however it did contain serpents and scorpions.” This is Rashi’s language quoting from the words of our Rabbis. (Shabbath 27a.) If so, the serpents and scorpions must have been in the cracks of the pit, or it was deep and they did not know about them. Had they seen them and known that they did not harm Joseph, it would have become clear to them that a great miracle had been done to him, and that he was indeed a perfectly righteous man. They would then have known that his merits would save him from all evil, and how would they touch the anointed one of G-d in whom He delights and whom He saves, even as it says, My G-d hath sent His angel, and hath shut the lions’ mouths, and they have not hurt me; for as much as before Him innocency was found in me. (Daniel 6:23.) But, we must therefore conclude, they did not know anything about it. In line with the simple meaning of the verse, it states that the pit was empty and completely devoid of water, for even if there were a little water in it, it would still be called “empty.” (Therefore, the verse specifies that there was no water in it to indicate that there was no water at all in it.) Similarly, For thou shalt die and not live, (II Kings 20:1.) which means “not live at all, under any circumstances.” Such redundancies are all for the purpose of clarification and emphasis.

Your cheeks. This is the upper part of the face, called pomels in O.F., next to the eyes. And in the language of the Talmud, it is called “ the pomegranate of the face.” (‘רקתך’, from ‘רק’, meaning empty; see Bereishis 37:24. ) It resembles the split half of a pomegranate from the outside, which is red and round. This is a praise in terms of a woman’s beauty. Our Rabbis explained the allegory as follows: Even the worthless (See Verse 1 above. ) ones רֵיקָנִים among you are full of mitzvos as a pomegranate. (Iyov 35:11. )

(Bereshit 37:21–22, 24)

[The Zohar] continues: “‘Into the pit, ’ in the eyes of the Other Side, the evil one.” For the root of receiving for oneself is in the eyes, in the mystical meaning of “the eye sees and the heart covets” (Rashi, end of Parashat Shelaḥ). This aspect of receiving is called a “pit” because it is [an expression of]: "The pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24), as the supernal light is not drawn there, in the mystical meaning of: “He and I cannot dwell in the same abode” (see Sota 5a).

The Gemara cites another statement of Rabbi Tanḥum. Rav Kahana said that Rabbi Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24). By inference from that which is stated: “And the pit was empty,” don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, this teaches that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

A Hanukkah lamp that one placed above twenty cubits is invalid, just as a sukka whose roofing is more than twenty cubits high, and just as an alleyway whose beam, its symbolic fourth partition in order to place an eiruv, is more than twenty cubits high, are invalid. The reason is the same in all three cases: People do not usually raise their heads and see objects at a height above twenty cubits. As there is a requirement to see all of these, they are deemed invalid when placed above that height. And the Gemara cites another statement that Rav Kahana said that Rav Natan bar Manyumi taught in the name of Rav Tanḥum: What is the meaning of the verse that is written with regard to Joseph: “And they took him, and cast him into the pit; and the pit was empty, there was no water in it” (Genesis 37:24)? By inference from that which is stated: And the pit was empty, don’t I know that there was no water in it? Rather, why does the verse say: There was no water in it? The verse comes to emphasize and teach that there was no water in it, but there were snakes and scorpions in it.

So they took Jeremiah and put him down in the pit of Malchiah, the king’s son, which was in the prison compound; they let Jeremiah down by ropes. There was no water in the pit, only mud, and Jeremiah sank into the mud.

O LORD, You brought me up from Sheol, preserved me from going down into the Pit.

(Exact meaning and connection of this verse and the next uncertain.) You, for your part, have released (released Taking shillaḥti as a second-person singular feminine form, with Septuagint; cf. Judg. 5.7 with note.) Your prisoners from the dry pit, (dry pit I.e., a pit that serves as a dungeon rather than a cistern (both are called bor in Heb.).) For the sake of the blood of your covenant,

They took him and threw him into the pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it.

and took and threw him into the pit; but the pit was empty, no water was therein, but serpents and scorpions were in it.

וישבו, they sat down; some distance away from the pit, in order to eat their midday meal and not to have to listen to his pitiful pleas.

AND THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. The nine brothers. (Neither Reuben nor Benjamin was there.)

A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES. Orechat is to be rendered caravan as Onkelos does. A caravan is so called because it travels on the roads (orechot).

SPICERY. Rabbi Moses Ha-Kohen the Spaniard (See notes to I.E.’s comments on Gen. 1:26.) explains nekhot (spicery) to mean a precious thing. Bet nekhoto (his treasure house) in and showed them all his treasure-house (bet nekhoto) (II Kings 20:13) is similar. Nekhot (Spelled nun, caf, alef, tav.) and nekhoto (Spelled nun, caf, vav, tav. The problem is that the word is not so spelled in II Kings 20:13. Krinsky and Cherez suggest that since the word is pronounced nekhoto, it is as if a vav is placed after the caf.) are similar because the vav and the alef are interchangeable since they are quiescent letters. (The alef and vav in nekhot are not pronounced. Hence they are quiescent. I.E. refers to the alef, vav, heh, yod as quiescent letters (otiyot ha-nach) because they are not always enunciated.)

AND BALM. The word for balm is encountered in Scripture vocalized with a quiescent sheva beneath the tzadi (utzri). (It is so found in our verse but not so found elsewhere in Scripture. I.E.’s basic point is that balm is spelled with a sheva in our verse, tzeri. However, there is an important grammatical aside in this note. I.E. calls our sheva a quiescent sheva, a sheva nach. However, according to standard grammatical usage a sheva following a long vowel is vocal. Thus our sheva should be a vocal sheva, a sheva na, and not a quiescent one. Therefore our word should be read u-tzeri and not utzri. William Chomsky points out that the vocal pronunciation of the sheva following a long vowel was introduced by the Kimchis and that the pre-Kimchi grammarians had no such concept. I.E.’s note seems to bear this out. Cf. W. Chomsky, “The pronunciation of the Sheva,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. LXII, October, 1971. For an alternate interpretation see Cherez.) We also find it vocalized with a chataf kamatz beneath the tzadi, viz., Is there no balm (ha-tzori) in Gilead? (Jer. 8:22). It also appears with the tzadi vocalized with a cholem, viz., and honey, and oil, and balm (ve-tzori) (Ezek. 27:17). Saadiah Gaon explained that tzeri (balm) (He said that it is identical to an Arabic medicine called triak (Weiser).) is a mixture of 75 roots. Others say that tzeri is a type of fruit. Still others say that it is either a fruit or the oil of a tree (Balsam (Weiser).) that, according to Joseph ben Gurion, (Jossipon. A medieval work based on Josephus.) was brought from Jericho to Egypt. However, Rabbi Ishmael (Cf. Kritot 6a; Shabbat 26a. However, in the Talmud this opinion is quoted in the name of Rabbi Simeon. Either there is a scribal error in our text or I.E. was quoting from memory.) says that it means resin. We will rely on the latter opinion.

AND LADANUM. Saadiah Gaon says that lot (ladanum) is the same fruit that in Arabic is similarly called with the addition of a bet. (Belut (Weiser).) Perhaps it is so.

וישבו לאכול לחם, “they sat down to eat their meal.” These words are a reflection of some degree of stoppage, permanence. They arrested their previous activities and emotional turmoil by sitting down to eat. Midrash Tehillim chapter 10 states that G’d’s reaction to the brothers “calmly” sitting down to eat as if nothing had happened was: “Your children will be sold as a result of a meal to be consumed at Shushan,” as we know from Esther 1,3 :”in the third year of the king’s reign, etc.” Haman came and took the Israelites who had felt emancipated away from the feast the king had prepared and at which the Jews had participated. The decree to wipe out the Jews was followed by the King and Haman sitting down to drink. (Esther 3,15)

נכאת, according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11, wax.

צרי, according to the view of Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel the word refers to resin, sap found in the trunk of the balsam tree. The word לוט according to Bereshit Rabbah 91,11 is מצטכי, Lotus?.

AND, BEHOLD, A CARAVAN OF ISHMAELITES CAME FROM GILEAD. When they looked up and saw at a distance men approaching from the direction of Gilead, (Ramban’s intent is to explain why Scripture refers to these men first as Ishmaelites, then as Midianites (Verse 28), and again as Ishmaelites (ibid.), and finally as Midianites (Verse 36).) they recognized them as a camel caravan of Ishmaelites on their way to Egypt, for it was from Gilead that balms and spices came, and it was their custom to bring it to Egypt. This was why Judah said to them, “Behold these men come from afar and are travelling to a distant country. Let us sell him to them so that the matter should not become known.” And when they came near they discovered them to be merchants of spices and balms — Midianites, merchantmen (Verse 28 here.) — who had hired the camels from the Ishmaelites. They sold Joseph to the Midianites who purchased him for profit, but the company of Ishmaelites, the lessors of the camels, would not purchase him for their own investment purposes. The verse which states, And they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, (Verse 28 here.) means that it was to them that the Midianites who bought him turned him over, for they were the ones who transported the merchandise to Egypt. This is also the meaning of the verse, From the hand of the Ishmaelites, that had brought him down thither, (39:1.) for he was in their care. But the Midianites were his masters, and they made trade with him. This is the sense of the verse, And the Midianites sold him to Egypt. (Verse 36 here.) All stories in Scripture are written in this manner: sometimes it is told in the name of the authority who commands that it be done, and other times in the name of the agent who performs the act. Such a case is the verse, All the great work of the Eternal which He did, (Deuteronomy 11:7.) while elsewhere it states, Which Moses did in the sight of all Israel. (Ibid., 34:12.) Similarly it says, Thus all the work that king Solomon did in the house of the Eternal was finished, (I Kings 7:51.) but it was Hiram that did it, as it is written, And he came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work. (Ibid., Verse 14.) In the case of Joseph himself, the verse says, And whatsoever they did there, he was the doer of it, (Further, 39:22.) thus ascribing the action both to he who commanded it and the one who did it. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that the Midianites are called Ishmaelites, just as Scripture, in speaking of Midianite kings, says, Because they were Ishmaelites. (Judges 8:24.) But the matter is not as Ibn Ezra considered it to be since the verse which states, For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites, (Judges 8:24.) alludes to “the children of the east” whose war it was, as it is written, Now all the Midianites and Amalekites and the children of the east assembled themselves together, (Ibid., 6:33.) and “the children of the east” are Ishmaelites, for concerning all the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, it is said, And he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Above, 25:6.) It is also possible that the kings were Ishmaelites who ruled over Midian. Otherwise, why should “kings of Midian” (Judges 8:26.) be called by the name of Ishmael their brother? In line with the literal sense of Scripture the correct interpretation concerning the sale of Joseph is as we have said. But our Rabbis have said (Bereshith Rabbah 84:2.) that he was sold several times [and have thereby explained why his captors are alternately referred to as Midianites and Ishmaelites].

ארחת means what the Targum says — A CARAVAN; this is called ארחת with reference to the travelers on the road (ארח) who compose it.

וגמליהם נשאים AND THEIR CAMELS WERE BEARING etc. — Why does Scripture specially announce what they were laden with? It is to tell you how great is the reward of the righteous: it is not usual for Arabs to carry anything but naphta and itran (tar) which are evil-smelling, but for this one (Joseph, the righteous) it was specially arranged that they should be carrying fragrant spices so that he should not suffer from a bad odour (Genesis Rabbah 84:17).

נכאת SPICERY — Every collection of many kinds of spices is called נכאת. So, too, (2 Kings 20:13) “and he showed them all the house of his נכתה which means the house where his spices were mixed. Onkelos translates it as meaning wax (perhaps an aromatic gum).

צרי AND BALM — a resin that exudes from the wood of the balsam-tree: it is the נטף that is enumerated among the ingredients of the incense used in the Tabernacle (Exodus 30:34; cf. Keritot 6a).

ולט AND LADANUM — This is called Lotos in the language of the Mishna. Our Rabbis have in treatise Niddah 8a explained that it is a vegetable root; it bears the name aristolochia (birthwort).

נשא עינים ist nie ein zufälliges, sondern ein absichtliches Ausschauen. Auch ihnen, da sie sich zum Essen niedersetzten, ließ doch das Gefühl keine Ruhe. Sie schauten nach der Grube hin. — Die Ismaeliten waren ein verwandter Stamm, und da dies keine "Kaufleute" waren, die mit allem und auch mit Menschen Geschäfte machten, so durften die Brüder, indem Josef den Ismaeliten verkauft wurde, erwarten, daß er bei ihnen bleiben und mit ihnen, nachdem sie ihre Gewürze in Mizrajim verkauft haben würden, in ihre Heimat, Arabien, zurückkehren würde. Es erklärt dies, weshalb die Brüder später gar keine Ahnung davon hatten, daß Josef in Ägypten sein könne. Es würde dies sich noch mehr bestätigen, wenn, wie es immerhin möglich ist und auch von manchen so aufgefasst wird, die Brüder ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft hätten, von denen sie, wie gesagt, erwarten durften, daß sie ihn mit sich in die Heimat nehmen würden, und diese es auch getan hätten, wenn nicht inzwischen midianitische Kaufleute schon vorauf gezogen wären, die ihn von den Ismaeliten auf Spekulation kauften und ihn dann in Ägypten wieder verkauften. Dem würde dann anscheinend der Bericht V. 36 entsprechen, demzufolge die Medaniten, vermutlich gleichbedeutend mit Midianiten, ihn in Mizrajim verkauften. Wenn es dann Kap. 39, 1 heißt, daß Potiphar ihn von der Hand der Ismaeliten, die ihn dort hinabgebracht hatten, gekauft habe, so müsste dies dann nur indirekt verstanden werden: vermittelst der Midianiten, an welche jene ihn verkauft hatten. Es dürfte dann aber darum auf die Ismaeliten dort als die erste Hand hingeblickt werden, in welche Josef durch die Brüder gebracht worden war, weil eben dadurch die irrige Meinung der Brüder motiviert ist, die ihn gar nicht in Ägypten erwarteten, eine Voraussetzung, die zu dem Verfolg der Geschichte nicht unwesentlich ist. Da jedoch jedenfalls entweder V. 36 oder Kap. 39, 1 in uneigentlichem Sinne verstanden werden muss, das מיד הישמעאלים aber viel weniger eine indirekte Vermittlung, als das מכרו אתו אל מצרים zulässt, wo vielmehr das אל, "nach Mizrajim hin", nicht במצרים, in Mizrajim, ganz eigentlich eine indirekte Vermittlung ausdrückt, da ferner der Wortlaut des V. 28 durchaus berichtet, nicht die Brüder, sondern diese midianitischen Kaufleute hätten Josef aus der Grube gezogen und ihn an die Ismaeliten verkauft: so hat diese Auffassung viel mehr für sich. Die Brüder wollten ihn an die Ismaeliten verkaufen, inzwischen kamen ihnen die Kaufleute zuvor, holten Josef heraus und verkauften ihn an die Ismaeliten. Immerhin meinten die Brüder, er befinde sich in deren Händen und sei mit ihnen in ihre Heimat zurückgekehrt. Es war gleichwohl eine ihnen unbekannte Fügung, daß diese ihn dennoch in Ägypten verkauften. Der ganze Verkauf fällt gleichwohl den Brüdern zur Last, da er in ihrem Sinne geschah und sie ihn gerne geschehen ließen, ohne ihn zu hindern, was ihnen ja ein leichtes gewesen wäre.

וישבו לאכול לחם, to demonstrate that what they had done was no crime in their eyes, or that the incident was not something that should interfere with their regular meal. When righteous people become aware of having inadvertently committed a sin, they not only do not celebrate it by eating, but they impose a fast day or more upon themselves. A prominent example of people imposing a fast day upon themselves, although they did not feel guilty for having done something wrong, were the Jewish tribes after having practically wiped out the tribe of Binyamin. We read about this in Judges 21,2-3 as well as about the fact that they imposed a fast upon themselves in spite of being convinced that they had done the right thing in going to war against that tribe. We also find something parallel when the King Darius threw Daniel into a pit full of starving lions. (Daniel 6,19). [The King had acted in accordance with the constitution of his country which demanded that a “heretic” such as Daniel be thrown to the lions, and the king’s efforts to have the law changed were rejected by his advisers. In spite of being legally correct, the king felt so badly that he went to bed hungry as a kind of penance for doing what was legally correct. Ed.] If the brothers sat down to eat immediately after throwing Joseph into the pit, this is clear evidence that in their minds they had certainly not committed any wrong. WE, who were not part of Yaakov’s household, and who know that these brothers were unanimously elevated to become the founding fathers of the Jewish nation, must therefore accept the premise underlying their actions as being that they had truly felt themselves personally threatened by Joseph, someone who was considered so mature that his own father had appointed him as manager over his senior brothers. The brothers had made strenuous efforts to put physical distance between themselves and Joseph in order to avoid any altercation. When he had sought them out in spite of their having signaled clearly that they wanted to avoid him, they felt understandably very threatened.

הולכים להוריד מצרימה, these Ishmaelites were camel owners, they did not own the merchandise described which was carried by their camels. As soon as they would deliver the merchandise to the appropriate address in Egypt their mission was completed.

They sat to eat bread. The brothers saw no fault in their actions, nor did they consider their actions something done in a moment of weakness. Their consciences did not prevent them from sitting down for a meal while their brother cried out from the pit. 7 And they lifted their eyes and saw, and behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad on the eastern side of the Jordan River. Until recent times, it was common practice for those traveling from the north down to Egypt, to cross the Jordan River and continue through the Dotan Valley, which borders the Yizre’el Valley, and then on toward the coastal plain. And their camels were bearing various spices [ nekhot ] ; 8 alternatively, nekhot refers to a specific spice. They were also bearing balm, a very valuable spice, and labdanum, a plant used for manufacturing perfume. The caravan was going to take them, these spices, down to Egypt to sell them there .

והנה אורחת ישמעאלים, ”and here there was a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.” Nachmanides explains that when the brothers looked around they saw a group of people and camels in the distance whom they immediately identified as Ishmaelites, though they were still quite distant. They knew that these Ishmaelites were headed for Egypt as it was their custom to bring these various spices named in our verse to Egypt. This is why Yehudah said that seeing these people come from a distant land and are headed for a distant land, they could sell Joseph to them and this matter would never become known. When these people drew near, they realized that they were not the people whom they had thought them to be, but that they were merchants who traveled these regions all the time. These merchants had bought the spices from the Ishmaelites and had rented camels from them. They sold Joseph to these merchants, who bought him to trade him off, just as they traded their other merchandise. The caravan of Ishmaelites they had espied earlier were in the business of renting out camels, never buying merchandise for their own consumption. This is the meaning of the words: מיד הישמעאלים אשר הורידוהו שמה, “from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down to Egypt.” (39,1) Joseph was under the control of the Ishmaelites, although he was owned by the Midianites, prior to his sale to Potiphar. The style of the whole paragraph i.e. the repetition of the events related therein, must be understood as once described from the Ishmaelties’ perspective, and once from the Midianites’ perspective. We encounter something of a similar nature at the very end of the Torah (Deuteronomy 34,12) ולכל היד החזקה וכל המורא הגדול אשר עשה משה לעיני כל ישראל, where all the miracles performed by Moses are attributed to him, whereas previously in Deuteronomy 11,3 all of these miracles are attributed to G’d Himself.” Ibn Ezra (on verse 28) says that the Midianites are called here Ishmaelites, as they are in Judges 8,24, [although Gideon had been fighting the 5 Kings of the Midianites. Ed] seeing that their founding mother was Hagar. [if she was identical with Keturah. Ed.] Rash’bam writes that the brothers did not sell Joseph at all, but they sat down to eat, and while they were eating they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites in the distance. They then decided that after they would have completed their meal they would sell Joseph to these Ishmaelites. Before being able to do so, the Midianites arrived on the scene (the brothers not being within earshot of Joseph’s cries for mercy) and pulled Joseph out of the pit. They proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. As to Joseph saying to his brothers in Genesis 45,4: “I am your brother whom you have sold to Egypt,” Joseph simply blamed what the brothers had done to him for his having been sold to Egypt. Some commentators interpret the word ומדנים as not referring to Midianites, but as being a derivative of the word מדון, strife as in ריב ומדון, Chabakuk, 1,3 where it describes strife and contention. The Torah meant that the strife and contention between the brothers ultimately resulted in Joseph being sold to Egypt. Yet another view expressed by some commentators is that the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, but they were afraid of raising him from the pit as they themselves might be bitten by the snakes; they therefore waited until the Midianites had raised him from the pit, as the Midianites were snake charmers and could safely venture into the pit. We know about all this from the Midianites who brought their charms with them when they visited Bileam as part of the delegation from Balak. (Numbers chapter 22) Joseph wound up being owned jointly by the Midianites and the Ishmaelites Some commentators say that the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar who had accused them of having kidnapped him. The Midianites guaranteed to Potiphar that Joseph was theirs to sell, and had not been kidnapped. This is why the Torah attributes the actual sale to the Midianites who acted as guarantors for the validity of the sale. The Ishmaelites are also described as selling him, as 1) they had physical possession of him, and 2) they had paid 20 silver pieces for him to the brothers. The reason why so little money changed hands was that Joseph, because of his traumatic experience in the pit, no longer looked nearly as handsome as he had before his trauma.

מה בצע, “what financial advantage?” There is a view expressed in the Midrash (Pessikta Rabbati Parshat Ki Tissa) according to which the brothers asked Yehudah to break the bread and to pronounce the blessing to G’d, לבצוע, at the meal, and he replied to them that it was most inappropriate to do so while they planned to commit murder.

And it is necessary that you know that human eating is nothing but an illusion, that it is not a true thing or a real activity, that it is something deceptive, something that keeps changing as it goes through the internal organs in a sequence of causes and effects. But ideas refined through wisdom, and by the attachment of one’s thought to the light of the intellect to the Upper Wisdom is itself “real and lasting eating,” as in the way that our Sages of blessed memory interpreted the verse: “‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank.’ (Ex 24:11.) R. Yohanan says, ‘real eating,’ [akhilah vada’it], as it is said, ‘In the light of the face of the King – life!’ (Prov.16:15.) And it is necessary for you to think hard about this verse, why it was necessary to say, ‘they envisioned,’ and why wasn’t it written as it was just before, ‘they saw? (Ex. 24:10.) But rather because it specified ‘they saw’ so you would not understand [what happened next] as actual seeing with the sense of your eye, it follows that it was necessary to say ‘they envisioned’ immediately afterward to teach you that this wasn’t this prior kind of ‘seeing’ [re’iyah], but rather seeing by means of prophecy, and that is why it said, ‘And they envisioned [va-yehezu] God, and they ate and drank,’ from the term for prophetic “vision” [mahzeh]. And the explanation of the Scripture ‘And they envisioned God, and they ate and drank,’ is that the leaders merited to see with the prophecy of ‘a glass that does not reflect,’ without a barrier, while the rest of Israel had a barrier, and Moses really “saw” directly. (That is, the leaders’ prophetic vision was better than the Israelites’, but not as direct as Moses.’) “And they ate and drank,” that is to say that their eating and drinking by this vision was indeed “real eating.” And it is also possible to interpret “And they ate and drank” as that they saw by prophecy the very attribute from which they “ate and drank,” that is, from the very same attribute from which the manna came to them, which is the principle behind all their material support, about which matter it is written, “She rises while it is still night,” (Prov. 31:15.) and it is written “Here I am causing it to rain down.” (Ex 16:4.) And you already knew that this was material support that occurred at night, for this is to what ‘She rises while is still night’ is referring. And thus the manna used to come down during the third watch of the night, when the Israelites were sleeping in their beds in the desert. And on the next day they would get up early in the morning and find their sustenance ready for them. This is the meaning of what is written: “So they gathered it every morning.” (Ex 16:21.) And thus you will find in First Temple that the rains used to fall on Wednesday and Shabbat nights, and on the next day they would get up early in the morning to do their work, without wasting any time. And so you also find with King Hezekiah, who said, “Master of the World, I myself don’t have the power in me to pursue enemies, or to sing a victory song, but I sleep on my bed, and you do it.” And the Holy One Blessed be He replied to him, “You sleep in your bed while I do it,” as it is said, “That night, an angel of the Lord struck down 185,000 in the Assyrian camp.” (2 Kings 19:35. This story about Hezekiah is a midrash from Lam. R. 30.) It was about him (or this) David spoke when he said, “In vain do you rise up early and stay up late…He provides as much for His loved ones while they sleep.” (Ps 127:2.) The meaning of the Scripture is that what the other peoples achieve through hard work, by getting up early and staying up late to eat the bread for which they toil, (An allusion to Ps 127:2. R. Bahya hints here that food “served” to Israelites without any toil, that is, good things God prepares for them while they are asleep, is angelic food. As R. Bahya put in his preface, “Our food is not their food. Their [the angelic beings’] food is conceived in their mind, when they see the face of their Maker. Our food is meager bread, water, and tears, gotten by hard work and toil.” It is like the food Adam ate before the Fall.) God provides to His loved ones while they sleep! This is the thing the Holy One provides to the one He loves, at the hour when he’s asleep, with no need to bother about it at all. And from now on any reference to “they ate and drank” means nothing other than a reference to “real eating,” or to eating the manna that was the offspring of the Upper Light – which is “real eating.”

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…” (Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse.) And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!” (A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur.) Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,” (Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests.) and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.” (Ibid., 10:11.) When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.” (Ibid., 10:10.) All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;” (Prov 3:6.) it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,” (Prov 3:6.) He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself” (1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB).) Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man” (Gen 42:18.) and “Am I a substitute for God?” (Ibid. 50:19.) hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.” (Ibid. 42:33.) He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,” (Is 55:4.) and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

“The couriers went out urgently by the king’s command, and the order was issued in the Shushan citadel; the king and Haman sat to drink, and the city of Shushan was confounded” (Esther 3:15). “The couriers went out urgently by the king’s command… the king and Haman sat to drink.” Rabbi Ḥanin said: Anyone who says that the All-Merciful is forbearing, his innards will be forborne. Rather, He withholds His anger, but [later] collects His due. He said to the tribes: ‘You sold your brother while eating and drinking. I will do the same to you;’ (Joseph’s brothers “sat down to eat a meal” (Genesis 37:25) when they came up with the idea of selling Joseph into slavery.) that is what is written: “And the king and Haman sat to drink.” There was a certain man of Israel who went to the marketplace to purchase a litra of meat or a bunch of greens; a Persian choked him and said to him: ‘Tomorrow I will kill you and spend your money’; that is what is written: “And the city of Shushan was confounded.” Rabbi Yissakhar of Kefar Mandi said: See how long it takes for the resolution [of the statement] of one who forgave, saying: “It was not you who sent me here, but rather God…” (Genesis 45:8). (Joseph to his brothers.) The punishment for the sale of Joseph was in effect until the days of Mordekhai; for one who does not forgive, all the more so.

R. Tarfon and the elders were once sitting in the shade of the grove of Yavneh when this question was once asked before them: Why need it be written (Genesis 37:25) "and their camels laden with spices, balm, and myrrh"? (He answered:) To apprise us of the extent to which the merit of the righteous comes to their aid. For if this "loved one" (Joseph) had gone down with (the usual wares of) the Arabs, would he not have died of the stench of the camels and the itran (a kind of resin)? But the Holy One Blessed be He "arranged" for him (a transport of) sacks full of spices and all goodly fragrances so that he not perish of their stench. (At this,) they said to him: You have taught us, our master, that this transpired in the merit of Joseph. They asked him: Our master, what is the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst? He answered: "Who creates manifold beings and (supplies) their wants. (We thank you for) all that You have created — Life of the worlds!" They: You have taught us, our master, the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst. Our master, in what merit did Judah attain to kingdom? R. Tarfon: You say. They: In the merit of his saying (Genesis, Ibid. 26) "What profit is it if we kill our brother, etc." by which he saved him from death. R. Tarfon: It suffices that this saving atone for his counsel to sell Joseph and not return him to his father.

(Exod. 32:1:) WHEN THE PEOPLE SAW THAT MOSES WAS LATE . What is the meaning of WAS LATE (boshesh)? (Shab. 89a; Gen. R. 18:6; Exod. R. 41:7; cf. PR 11:12.) six (shesh) hours had passed (bo) without Moses having come down, for Moses had made an agreement with them and said to them: After forty days I will bring you the Law. As soon as six hours had passed and he had not come down, immediately (ibid., cont.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON. Our masters have said: Satan came, confounded the world, (See also Tanh., Exod. 9:19.) and showed them something like Moses suspended from the earth, i.e., in the air (Avir; cf. Gk.: aer.) beneath it. (Cf. the parallel in Exod. R. 41:7, which reads, “suspended between heaven and earth.”) Then they pointed a finger at him and said (ibid., cont.): FOR THIS IS THE MAN, MOSES. (The biblical context would suggest the following translation: FOR REGARDING THIS MAN MOSES .) At that time Hur said to them: O stiff-necked < people >, do you not remember what he did for you? (Lev. R. 10:3. According to Exod. 24:14, Moses left Aaron and Hur in charge while he was up on the mountain.) They arose and killed him. (Below, Exod. 10:4; Exod. R. 41:7; 42:1; 48:3; Numb. R. 9:45.) Then they gathered together against Aaron, as stated (ibid.): THE PEOPLE GATHERED TOGETHER AGAINST AARON…. (Sanh. 7a; Exod. R. 51:8.) They said to him: If you make a god for us, well and good; but if not, we will do to you just as we did to Hur. (Exod. 32:5:) WHEN AARON SAW THIS, he saw what they had done to Hur, (ibid., cont.) HE BUILT (YBN) AN ALTAR (MZBH), he understood (HBYN) from the slaughtered (MZBWH) one. (So also Lev. R. 10:3; cf. Gen. R. 34:9, which gives the same interpretation of BUILT, in Gen. 8:20.) They wanted to build along with him. He said to them, leave me alone, and I will make it by myself, for no one is to build it along with me. Now Aaron had a plan. saying : While I am building it, Moses will come down. (So also Exod. R. 37:2.) Immediately (in Exod. 32:6): SO THEY ROSE EARLY THE NEXT DAY, < OFFERED BURNT OFFERINGS, AND BROUGHT PEACE OFFERINGS>; [AND THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN TO EAT AND DRINK.] In every place that you find sitting, there you find degradation. (Exod. R. 41:7; similarly Sanh. 106a; Gen. R. 38:7; Tanh., Gen. 9:1; Sifre, Numb. 131; PRE 47.) Thus it is stated (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD. What degradation happened there? that they sold Joseph. It is also written (in Numb. 25:1): WHILE ISRAEL WAS STAYING (literally: SITTING) AT SHITTIM. And what was the degradation there? (Ibid., cont.:) THE PEOPLE BEGAN TO GO WHORING . And here too (in Exod. 32:6): THEN THE PEOPLE SAT DOWN, the sitting of idolatry. The Holy One said to Moses; They have risen to revel in idolatry, while you are sitting . (Exod. 32:7:) GO AND GET DOWN. At that time Moses was going to go down, but he saw the angels of destruction and was afraid to go down. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID OF ANGER AND RAGE. What did he do? He went and grasped the throne, as stated (in Job 26:9): HE (Moses) GRASPS THE FACE OF A THRONE; [HE (the Holy One) SPREAD HIS CLOUD UPON HIM]. So the Holy One protected him and spread some of the radiance of his Divine Presence over him. Come and see how many troubles they caused. Yesterday Moses had shoved them (the angels of destruction) aside, (According to Shab. 88b-89a and Exod. R. 28:1, because the angels wanted the Torah for themselves, they tried to prevent Moses from receiving it.) and now he was afraid of them. (Deut. 9:19:) FOR I WAS AFRAID OF [ANGER AND RAGE]. The five angels of destruction were Af (Anger), Qetsef (Wrath), Meshabber (Smasher), Mashhit (Destroyer), and Hemah (Rage); (Cf. Tanh., Exod. 9:20.) Moses mentioned three patriarchs, and three went away. (See also Exod. R. 44:1.) But ANGER AND RAGE remained behind. Moses said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World: You stand up to one and I to one, as stated (in Ps. 7:7 [6]): RISE UP, O LORD, IN YOUR Af (ANGER). (A more traditional translation would be: RISE UP, O LORD IN YOUR ANGER.) The Holy One said to him (in Exod. 32:7): GO AND GET DOWN; you have a descent (i.e., degradation). He said to him: Why? HE SAID TO HIM: BECAUSE YOUR PEOPLE HAVE ACTED BASELY. Moses said to him: Now are they my people and not your people! (Exod. 32:12:) TURN BACK FROM YOUR WRATHFUL ANGER. R. Simeon ben Johay said: Moses did not move from praying until the Holy One was reconciled to them. The Holy One said: In this world you sinned against me because the evil drive was ordering you; but in the world to come I am rooting it out of you, as stated (in Ezek. 36:26): I WILL REMOVE THE HEART OF STONE FROM YOUR FLESH AND GIVE YOU A HEART OF FLESH. (Below, Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 1:12; above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 1:40; Tanh., Exod. 9:19; Tanh., Lev. 1:6.)

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden? (Gen. R. 84:17.) Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran? (One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc.) Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else. (I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3.) What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And they sat down to eat bread (ibid., v. 25). R. Judah the son of Shalum said: This is a notable instance of many sitting down together in unity, with a single thought in mind; to sell Joseph. Yet he fed the world for seven years, through two famines. If despite their sin he could feed the world and cause it to endure, how much more beneficial would have been the result if they had acted meritoriously. Similarly, observe what happened to the tribes in the chapter Shekalim, when they were permitted to atone for the incident of the golden calf. If the heinous sin they committed could lead to the performance of a worthy act, how much more so if they had acted meritoriously.

And Jacob sat in the land (Gen. 37:1). Whenever Scripture uses the expression and he sat (also translated “and he dwelt”), it connotes misfortune: And Israel sat in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, … and the time drew near that Israel must die (Gen. 47:29); And the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to make merry (Exod. 32:6); And there fell of the people on that day three thousand men (Exod. 32:28); And they sat down to eat bread; and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:25); And Judah and Israel sat safely (I Kings 5:5); And the Lord raised up an adversary against Solomon (ibid. 11:14); And Israel sat among the cedars, etc., and the people began to commit harlotry (Num. 25:1). You may explain every other use of “and he sat” with this negative implication. In this instance And Jacob sat is followed by and Joseph brought evil report of them unto his father (Gen. 37:2).

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

"The arrogance of the wicked kindles the poor. This refers to Lot who was caught with the people of Sodom. The tribes thought they had devised a plan, but they were caught in their own schemes. Rabbi Yudan said: The one who says 'the merciful One will forgive' is not forgiven until he appeases his friend. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tribes: You sold your brother for food and drink, as it says, 'And they sat down to eat bread' (Genesis 37:25). Behold, your children will be sold in Shushan during a feast, as it says, 'And the king and Haman sat down to drink' (Esther 3:15). Rabbi Yissachar said: What if Joseph had not forgiven his brothers, as it says, 'It was not you who sent me here, but God' (Genesis 45:8)? See how this is corrected for them! He who does not forgive his friend, even for a minor offense, is guilty of many sins. Rabbi Chanin said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tribes: You said, 'Let us sell Joseph as a slave.' By your lives, you will be called slaves every year. Rabbi Pinchas said in the name of Rabbi Hosea: The tribes caused their father's coat to be torn, and they were punished in Egypt, as it says, 'And they tore their clothes' (Genesis 44:13). Joseph caused the tribes to tear their clothes, and his descendant, Joshua, was punished, as it says, 'And Joshua tore his clothes' (Joshua 7:6)."

And (Gabriel) said to him: What seekest thou? He said to him: I seek my brethren, as it is said, "And he said, I seek my brethren" (Gen. 37:16). And he led him to || his brethren, and they saw him and sought to slay him, as it is said, "And they saw him afar off" (Gen. 37:18). Reuben said to them: Do not shed his blood, as it is said, "And Reuben said unto them, Shed no blood; cast him into this pit that is in the wilderness" (Gen. 37:22). And his brethren listened to him, and they took Joseph and cast him into the pit, as it is said, "And they took him, and cast him into the pit" (Gen. 37:24). What did Reuben do? He went and stayed on one of the mountains, so as to go down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit. And his nine brethren were sitting down in one place, all of them like one man, with one heart and one plan. Ishmaelites passed by them, and (the brethren) said: Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and they will lead him to the end of the wilderness, and Jacob will not hear any further report concerning him.

“The tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). “The tablets were the work of God.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Each and every day, a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Ḥorev and proclaims: ‘Woe unto the creations for the affront to the Torah, as anyone who does not regularly engage in the Torah is ostracized from before the Holy One blessed be He,’ as it is stated: “The tablets were the work of God.” (God’s occupation, as it were, is involvement in Torah, and therefore anyone who ignores Torah ignores God (Matnot Kehuna; see Tanḥuma, Ki Tisa 16). ) “Engraved [ḥarut] on the tablets.” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yirmeya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not read it as ḥarut, but rather as ḥerut – freedom from the exiles. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Freedom from the angel of death. The Rabbis say: Freedom from suffering. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: If the angel of death were to come and say before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You created me in this world for naught,’ He would say: ‘I granted you dominion over every nation in the world except for this nation, to whom I granted freedom.’ That is, “ḥarut on the tablets.” “The people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the mountain, and the people assembled around Aaron and said to him: Rise, make us a god that will go before us, because this man Moses, who took us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him” (Exodus 32:1). “The people saw that Moses tarried [boshesh].” What is “tarried [boshesh]”? Six hours had passed [ba’u shesh] and he had not descended. Why? It is because he had stipulated to them: In forty days I will bring you the Torah. When six hours passed [on the fortieth day] and Moses had not descended, immediately, “the people assembled around Aaron.” The Rabbis say: The accuser found his opportunity at that moment, as Moses was seen suspended between the heavens and earth, and they were pointing at him with a finger and saying: “Because this man Moses.” At that moment, Ḥur confronted them and said to them: ‘You fools, (Literally, you whose heads were severed at the neck.) do you not recall what miracles the Holy One blessed be He performed on your behalf?’ Immediately, they arose against him and killed him. They surrounded Aaron, as it is stated: “The people assembled around Aaron.” They said to him: ‘Just as we did to that one, so we will do to you.’ When Aaron saw that, he was afraid, as it is stated: “Aaron saw and he built an altar [mizbe’aḥ] before it [lefanav]” (Exodus 32:5). What is mizbe’aḥ? Due to the one who was slaughtered before him [min hazavuaḥ shelefanav]. Another matter, “he built an altar,” they sought to build an altar with him, but he did not allow them to do so. He said to them: ‘Allow me, and I will build it myself, as it is not in keeping with the honor due the altar for another to build it.’ But Aaron intended to delay matters. He said: ‘By the time I build it by myself, Moses will descend.’ He built it, but Moses did not descend. Immediately, they arose early the next day, as the prophet cries out: “However, they arose early and corrupted all their exploits” (Zephaniah 3:7). “The people sat to eat and drink, and they rose to revel” (Exodus 32:6) in idol worship. Wherever you find sitting [yeshiva], you find a mishap, as we found regarding the generation of the Dispersion, as it is stated: “They found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled [vayeshvu] there” (Genesis 11:2). What mishap was there? “They said: Come let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4). “They sat [vayeshvu] to eat bread” (Genesis 37:25), and it is written: “They sold Joseph” (Genesis 37:28). “Israel settled [vayeshev] in the Shitim” (Numbers 25:1). What mishap was there? “The people began to engage in licentiousness with the daughters of Moav” (Numbers 25:1). What was their end? “Those who died [in the plague were twenty-four thousand]” (Numbers 25:9). Here, too, it is sitting, [implying] idol worship: “The people sat to eat….” The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘They rose to revel in idol worship, and you are sitting here? “Descend!”’ (Exodus 32:7). At that moment, Moses sought to descend, but he encountered angels of destruction. He feared them and he did not descend, as it is written: “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury” (Deuteronomy 9:19). What did Moses do? He went and grasped the [Divine] throne, as it is stated: “He grasps the surface of His throne and spreads His cloud over it” (Job 26:9); the Holy One blessed be He spread [His cloud] and protected him. He said: “Rise, descend quickly from here” (Deuteronomy 9:12). [Moses] said: ‘I am afraid.’ Come and see how potent iniquities are. In the past he had overcome them, but now he feared them. (In the past Moses had disputed with and overcome the angels, but now he was afraid of them (see Maharzu). ) “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury,” five angels of destruction were there: Wrath, fury, anger, destruction, and annihilation. At that moment, the three patriarchs came, and overcame three of them. Wrath and fury remained. Moses said: ‘Master of the universe, please, arise from Your Throne of Glory and overcome one, and I [will overcome] one,’ as it is stated: “Arise, Lord, in Your wrath” (Psalms 7:7). (This is understood to mean: ‘Arise, Lord, and hold back Your wrath’ – i.e. the angel of wrath, one of the angels of destruction that remained. ) And I will overcome fury, as it is stated: “He said to destroy them, had it not been for Moses, His chosen one, who stood before Him in the breach to turn back His fury” (Psalms 106:23). Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Descend, it is a demotion for you.’ He said to Him: ‘Why?’ [God said:] “For your people…have acted corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). Moses said to Him: ‘Now You are calling them my people; they are only Your people. “Relent from Your enflamed wrath and reconsider the evil for Your people”’ (Exodus 32:12). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Moses did not move from prayer until the Holy One blessed be He called them His people, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered the evil that He had spoken of doing to His people” (Exodus 32:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘In this world, because the evil inclination is in them, they craft idols. But in the future, I will uproot the evil inclination from within them and I will grant them a heart of flesh,’ just as it says: “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

(Bamidbar 25:1) "And Israel sat in Shittim, and the people began to stray after the daughters of Moav. "sitting" in all places connotes subversion (of morality), as in (Shemot 32:6) [in connection with the golden calf] "And the people sat down to eat and to drink," and (Bereshit 37:25) [in connection with the selling of Joseph] "And they sat down to eat bread." R. Akiva says: Every section (in the Torah) which is juxtaposed with another is meant to be learned from. It is written above (Bamidbar 24:14) "Come, I (Bilam) will counsel you" (how to undo Moav). He said to them: The G-d of this people hates harlotry, and they lust after flaxen garments. Come and I will counsel you. Put up tents for them, and seat old women outside and a young girl inside, and let them sell them flaxen garments, etc." Rebbi says: There are many adjoining sections n the Torah which are as far from each other as east from west. To wit (Shemot 6:12) "Behold, the children of Israel have not listened to me, etc." — (Shemot 6:13) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, and He commanded them unto the children of Israel." What does one verse have to do with the other? What did He command them? What He had already told them, viz. (Shemot 3:18) "And they will listen to you, etc." Similarly, (Vayikra 21:9) "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, if she profane herself by harlotry" — (Vayikra 21:10) "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A centurion served his term but failed to enter his primipilate (a high office) and fled. The king sent and had him returned and sentenced to decapitation. Before his execution the king says: Bring a heap of golden dinars before him and tell him: If you had done as your fellows did, you would have been granted this heap and your life. Now, you have lost both your life and your money. Likewise, the daughter of a Cohein who played the harlot. The high-priest goes out before her and says to her: If you had conducted yourself as your elders did, you would have merited bearing a high-priest such as I. Now you have lost both yourself and your honor. This is the intent of "And the daughter of a man who is a Cohein, etc." and "And the Cohein who is exalted over his brothers, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 1:9) "You are not my people" — (Hoshea 2:1) "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or counted, and in place of their being told 'You are not My people,' etc." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A king gets angry with his wife and sends for a scribe to write her a divorce. But before the scribe arrives, the king is reconciled with his wife, whereupon the king says: "Shall the scribe leave here empty-handed? Tell him to come and write that I am doubling her kethubah." This is the intent of "for you are not My people, etc." and "And the number of the people of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, etc." Similarly, (Hoshea 14:1) "Shomron shall bear her guilt, for she has defied her G-d" — (Ibid. 2) "Return, O Israel to the L-rd your G-d." What does one verse have to do with the other? An analogy: A province rebels against the king, who sends for a general and orders him to devastate it. The general, being wise and seasoned tells them: "Put together something for me to relay to the king, or I will do to you what I did to this and this province." This is the intent of "Shomron shall bear her guilt for she has defied her G-d" and "Return, O Israel, etc."

לוטם (resin – used as a perfume; Maimonides calls it a chestnut or hazelnut) – It is the Aramaic translation of (Genesis 37:25): “[their camels bearing] gum, balm [and ladanum to be taken to Egypt];” And there are those who say that it is TZINBAR in Arabic; PANYULISH in the foreign language.

בשיירא – in the desert/wilderness. (Genesis 37:25): “[Then they sat down to a meal. Looking up, they saw] a caravan of Ishmaelites [coming from Gilead].” We translate in Aramaic an Arab caravan.

בשבתנו על סיר בשר, “when we had been sitting besides a pot of meat.” They did not imply that they actually had meat in Egypt, but that they had adequate food. Another example of where לחם does not literally mean “bread,” but a meal, is found in Genesis 37,25. The same is true for the expression סיר בשר.

פרא אדם, an anonymous trader who travels to distant places where he is not known; compare Genesis 37,25 where the Torah describes such a caravan of Ishmael’s descendants to whom Joseph was sold. The word פרא also occurs as the definition of a person in Job 11,12. ועיר פרא יולד, i.e. an infant born and not yet named is a פרא. A person who lacks the intelligence and senses of ordinary people is called there: עיר פרא, “a wild ass;”[I am not sure about the difference between פרא אדם and אדם פרא. What seems clear is that the adjective פרא appears to diminish the degree of צלם אלוקים, Divine image that ordinary people have been equipped with from birth. It may be noteworthy that both Kayin and Hevel when born, the first human beings to have been born by woman, were not described as possessing this Divine image as opposed to Sheth, Chavah’s third son. This may explain a great deal about both of these sons experiencing either premature death, or ongoing tragedy in their lives. Ed.]

מעט צרי, “a little balsam;” something not available in Egypt. We have read that caravans used to transport this material to Egypt in Genesis 37.25.

Rashi (to Bereishit 37:25), following Chazal (citing Bereishit Rabbah 84:17), explains that normally Arab caravans carried foul-smelling items such as resin and tar. Hashem arranged that the caravan transporting Yosef would feature fragrant spices so that Yosef need not suffer from the malodorous wares.

According to Midrash Tanchuma 1 on our portion, examination of the occurrence of the word וישב throughout the Torah will reveal that this term is always used when some unhappy event was associated with such “settlement.” The following examples illustrate the point. Exodus 32,6 speaks of וישב העם לאכול ושתו ויקומו לצחק, “the people settled down to eat and to drink and they arose to make sport (worship the golden calf).” On that day three thousand of the people were slain on account of this sin). Genesis 37,25 reports that after throwing Joseph into the pit, וישבו לאכול לחם וישאו עיניהם והנה אורחת ישמעלים באה.....וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “when the brothers had settled down to eat their meal they raised their eyes and here a caravan of Ishmaelites arrived,......and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites.” In Kings I 5,5 we read וישב יהודה וישראל בטח,...ויקם ה' שטן לישראל, “when Yehudah and Israel had settled safely,...G’d made an adversary against Solomon” (11,14) [as a punishment for transgressing certain commands in the Torah, Ed.] In Numbers 25,1 we read וישב ישראל בשטים ויחל העם לזנות, “when the Israelites settled down at a place called Shittim, the people started debasing themselves by whoring” (with the Moabite women which resulted in G’d killing 24,000 of them). In our instance too Yaakov’s “settling” in the land of Canaan had in its wake his traumatic experience of the loss of Joseph. G’d had said (according to the Midrash) “is Yaakov not satisfied with inheriting the world to come that he must now also inherit this terrestrial world. It is not appropriate for the righteous to enjoy the best of both worlds.” According to Tanchuma when Yaakov became aware of the extent of the kings and chiefs listed in the Torah as descendents of from Esau he became worried about not having anything to counter such physical prowess of the Edomites. The matter may be explained in the form of a parable. A caravan of camels was heavily laden with straw. The onlookers could not imagine that there were storage facilities large enough to accommodate all this straw and they were worried that the owners would demand their own (the onlookers’) facilities to accommodate all that excess straw. An old man amongst the onlookers told his compatriots not to worry seeing that it would require only a single match to set fire to the entire mass of straw carried by the camels. Similarly, G’d put Yaakov’s mind at rest telling him that Esau would go up in flames just as straw would go up in flames. This is what the prophet Ovadiah 18 described when he compared the fate of the house of Esau and the fate of the house of Joseph in the future. The “match” in our instance would be Joseph, whose descendants would vanquish the descendants of Esau.

Having established all this we can now address the amount of silver Haman offered to pay King Ahasverus in exchange for permission to destroy the Jews in his kingdom. Seeing that he offered 10.000 talents of silver, this was equivalent to 50 shekel for every Jew assuming that there had been 600.000 Jews at the time. The number 50 shekel is the maximum amount per adult male between the age of 20 and 60 prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27,3) that someone “donating” his own equivalent to G’d has to give to the Temple treasury. Another way of understanding why Haman picked on this amount of silver may be that when the Israelites sold their brother Joseph and received 20 pieces of silver in exchange, i.e. an amount of 5 shekel, or half a shekel each, and their guilt had not yet been atoned, he concluded that in exchange for the amount he offered he could legally make all the Jews his slaves (again by assuming that there were a total of 600.000 Jews). He felt certain that he would succeed seeing that the brothers had never been punished by G’d for selling Joseph into slavery. He presumably reasoned similar to what we have been told in Midrash Tehillim 10 that because the brothers sat down to eat their meal (Genesis 37,28) after throwing Joseph into the pit but before selling him, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had just occurred, G’d was so angry that He said: “seeing you have sold your brother as a result of feasting, your descendants will be sold as a result of their having feasted (participating in the banquet given by King Ahasverus).” This is why the Book of Esther makes such a point of telling us that the King and Haman sat down to a feast after having concluded the deal in which Haman acquired authority to do to the Jews whatever he wanted.

NATAPH’ — is tzori (balsam). Now in Rashi’s commentary it is written: “The balm itself is called triga, (In our Rashi: theriaque. — To this term Ramban will object, since a theriac is an electuary [a medical compound] composed of many ingredients.) but because it is merely the sap which ‘drips’ from the wood of the balsam it is called nataph (dripping).” But I do not know whether this is the scribe’s mistake, or the one who so told Rashi misinformed him. For theriac [the triga mentioned by Rashi] is not one ingredient but is a compound of many ingredients, containing leaven and honey, the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, for the powder of dried scorpions and the flesh of the viper go into it, this being the reason why it is so called [theriac], for “poison” in Greek is called theriac. So also in the language of the Talmud: (Shabbath 109b.) “Torkai (stung by) a serpent.” Similarly this compound is mentioned in the language [of the Rabbis]: (Nedarim 41b.) “as theriac is good for the whole body.” And Heaven forbid that there should be in the incense the flesh of forbidden animals and reptiles, leaven and honey, for it is written, for ye shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. (Leviticus 2:11.) Rather, the tzori is the oily sap which drips from the balsam tree, called in the language of the Sages k’taph. It is this which we have been taught: (Kerithoth 6a.) “Rabban (The title “Rabban” [instead of “Rabbi”] signifies that he was the Nasi (Prince) of the Sanhedrin.) Shimon ben Gamaliel says: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph (balsam) tree.” Perhaps it is called k’taph (plucking off) because they break off its branches on days in the hot season, and the balm runs down from the place where it is broken. In the Gemara of Chapter Bameh Madlikin (“With what may they light” [the Sabbath lamp]? — Shabbath 26a.) it is stated: “Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar says: We do not light [the Sabbath lamp] with tzori, and so did Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar (In Ramban manuscripts: “Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel.” So also in some manuscripts of the Talmud (see Dikdukei Sofrim, Shabbath, p. 48 Note 1).) say: The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap exuding from the balsam tree.” And there in the Gemara (Ibid., 25b.) the Sages explained the reason [why that balm is not used for the Sabbath lamp], because its fragrance spreads and he may come to use it as food [and taking off oil from a burning lamp is considered the same as extinguishing it]. Thus it is clear that the tzori mentioned [for the incense] is that good oil mentioned [in the above Gemara]. And I wonder! For Onkelos translated: ‘n’choth’ (spicery) ‘u’tzri’ (and balm) and labdanum (Genesis 37:25.) — sh’aph u’ktaph. Similarly he rendered: a little ‘tzori’ (balm) (Ibid., 43:11.) — k’taph. But nataph [here in this verse] he translated n’tupha, and did not translate it as he did in the case of the word tzori! (For since Onkelos translated (in Genesis 37:25) the Hebrew tzori as the Aramaic k’taph, he should have translated likewise here the Hebrew nataph, for as said above nataph is tzori, and so why did he translate it as k’topha?) And Yonathan [ben Uziel] translated everywhere tzori as sh’aph, which is a term for an anointing oil in the language of the Talmud, such as in their saying: (Chullin 111b.) “[for him whose eyes hurt] they make shipha (an ointment of various components) in a vessel,” the word shipha being short of the letter ayin, which would make it she’ipha. A similar example is: (Beitzah 16a.) “D’sha’yeiph (he anoints) him with the same kind he gave him” to eat. Here too, the word d’sha’yeiph is like d’sha’iph [with the letter ayin]. It appears from their opinions (From Onkelos who translated (in Genesis 37:25) tzori as k’taph, and from Yonathan who translated it as sh’aph.) that both the balsam tree and its fruit are called tzori in the Sacred Language, just like t’einah (fig), rimon (pomegranate), ethrog, and many other names like them. The term n’choth (Genesis 37:25.) is thus, according to them, [Onkelos and Yonathan], a generic name for all notable and fragrant oils. That is why Scripture states, and he [Hezekiah] showed them all the house ‘n’chothoh’ (of his treasure), (II Kings 20:13.) because the treasure-house where the precious oil is stored is called by that name, seeing that it is the choicest of all treasure, and there in fact it is also written, and the precious oil. (II Kings 20:13.) Therefore Onkelos said in the case of the present that Jacob sent to Joseph, that they brought him sh’aph [which is the Aramaic translation for the Hebrew n’chot], (Ibid., 43:11.) which is the term for that notable oil. And they further brought [in the present for Joseph] from the branches of the tzori-tree called k’taph. (This explains Onkelos’ translation in Genesis 43:11.) In other places where Scripture mentions tzori alone, speaking of it as a beneficial medicine — such as in the verse, Is there no ‘tzori’ in Gilead? (Jeremiah 8:22.) — Yonathan translates it as referring to the oil called sh’aph. Onkelos translated [here] nataph as netupha, which is an oil called by that name because it “drips” from the broken branches. There is no justification here to translate nataph as sh’aph, for the incense did not contain any ointment. Now I have seen that Harav Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] (Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Klei Hamikdash 2:4.) included in the incense the bark of a tree called in Arabic od balsan. From this it would appear that he was of the opinion that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel who said: (Kerithoth 6a.) “The tzori [required for the incense] was the sap which exuded from the k’taph-tree” thereby intended to differ with the Sages [who counted the tzori among the eleven components of the incense], and to say instead that tzori was not one of the ingredients of the incense, since tzori is nothing but a sap, and it was not the sap [of the k’taph] that was put into the incense, but the [bark of the] k’taph itself.

ASSHURIM, AND LETUSHIM, AND LEUMMIM. Rashi comments: “These were the names of clan chieftains. But I cannot reconcile Onkelos’ translation with the language of the text.” (Onkelos translates Asshurim as meaning “camps,” Letushim as “owners of tents who spread about in all directions,” and Leumim as “islands” or “sea-districts.” Upon this Rashi comments that he cannot make Onkelos’ translation fit in exactly with the words of the text. Ramban now proceeds to explain Onkelos’ understanding on the verse and also the reason why he was forced to make this translation.) It appears to me that Onkelos was of the opinion that Asshurim means camps, companies that travel the roads from city to city, just as it says, a company of Ishmaelites. (Further, 37:25.) Onkelos thus considered Asshurim as being derived from the expressions, To His steps (‘ba’ashuro’) hath my foot held fast; (Job 23:11.) His steps (‘ashurav’) do not slide. (Psalms 37:31.) And Onkelos’ opinion of Letushim is that they are the ones who dwell in tents that are scattered over the face of the earth, resting today in one place and tomorrow in another, for the letter lamed and nun interchange in many places, [thus Letushim would be like Netushim (scattered ones)] just like lishchah and nishchah, (Nehemiah 13:7.) [both of which mean “chamber”]; And on that day men were appointed over ‘haneshachoth’ (the chambers). (Ibid., 12:44.) From this root is derived the expression, a sword ‘netushah,’ (Isaiah 21:15.) which is the same as letushah (sharpened). And of the word Le’ummim Onkelos said ulenagvon, [which is Aramaic for the Hebrew word] iyim (islands). (See Isaiah 41:1 and Targum.) Onkelos was stirred to this translation by the word hayu [and the children of Dedan ‘hayu’ (were) Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim], when it would have been proper to express it similarly to the verse, And Mitzraim begot Ludim, and Ananim, and Lehabim, and Naphtihim. (Above, 10:13.) And in Bereshith Rabbah we find: (61:4.) “Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though we translate these names and say, ‘Merchants, flaming ones, and heads of peoples,’ all of them were heads of peoples.” The matter is as I have explained. The translators rendered Asshurim as “merchants, those who walk the road.” From the word Letushim (sharp, shiny) they derived “men of wickedness,” their faces are faces of flame, (Isaiah 13:8.) burning as torches, from the roots: to sharpen ( liltosh ) his plowshare, and his coulter; (I Samuel 13:20.) He sharpened ( yiltosh ) his eyes upon me. (Job 16:9.) But Rabbi Shmuel the son of Rav Nachman said that even though they are accustomed to thus translate these names, they are still only the proper names of the heads of people, there being no descriptive name among them at all. And such is the case.

His treasure house. The storehouse of his spices, (נכאת is a term used to describe choice possessions. Accordingly, the Gemara presents different opinions. Some say נכאת is “his treasure house,” others say, “his most powerful weapons,” i.e., his armory. Yet others say that he had his wife [=בית נכתה] wait on them and pour their drinks. See Maseches Sanhedrin 104a and Rashi there) as in, “spices [=נכאת], balm, and lotus.” (Bereishis 37:25..)

his entire treasure house (נְכֹתֹה) the storehouse of his spices, like (Gen. 37:25) “spices (נְכֹאת), balm, and lotus.”

ויד כל בו, “and everyone’s hand will be against him.” They would hate him and provoke strife with him. Nachmanides writes that in the expression פרא אדם the word פרא is in the construct mode to the word אדם, meaning that he will be more like a mule than a human being in character. He will constantly look for someone or something to attack and destroy, whereas people, as a result, would constantly be looking for him to neutralize him. The prediction of the angel was to characterize not so much Yishmael himself but the descendants, the Muslim nations and their method of spreading their religion with the fire and the sword. Ibn Ezra understands the word פרא as an alternate for the word חפשי, “free,” in the sense of “unable to submit to anyone’s authority.” The words ועל פני כל אחיו ישכון, Ibn Ezra understands to mean that Yishmael will dwell wherever his brothers, the sons of Keturah will dwell. Some commentators understand the term פרא אדם to mean that Yishamel will be a merchant forever in search of merchandise to buy or sell. Indeed we find that most of the Ishmaelites during the period of Yaakov already engaged in long distance trade, traveling in caravans with camels etc. (compare Genesis 37,25-27).

They sat down [reclined] to eat bread. They raised their eyes and saw—behold a Yishmaelite [Arabian] caravan was coming from Gilod. Their camels were carrying spices, balsam and lotus, bringing them down to Egypt.

A band of Saracens

And they sat around to eat bread. And they lifted up their eyes, and looked, and behold a band of Arabians were coming from Gilead with their camels, carrying wax, resin, balsam and stacte, proceeding to go into Mizraim.

It happened [once] with Rebbi Tarfon, that he was sitting in the shade of a dovecote, on Shabbat, in the afternoon. They (i.e. the servants) brought in front of him a bucket of cold [water to drink]. Rebbi Tarfon said to his students, “[A person] who drinks water to quench his thirst, what Beracha does he say [before drinking the water]?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Borei Nefashot Vechesronan (Who Created Souls and Made Them Lack).” [Then] he said to them, “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “It says [in the Torah], ‘And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes, and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, and their camels are carrying gum, balsam and resin, transporting them to Egypt.’ (Genesis 37:25) Is not it the way of the Arabs to [usually] carry bad smelling skins and tar? But rather [what happened was that God] placed that righteous man (i.e. Yosef) among favorable things. Is not this a Kal Vechomer (a derivation from minor to major)? Just like at the time when [God] is angry [at] the righteous [people, He still] has mercy on them, then at the time [of God’s] mercy, how much more so.”...

“And Yehuda said to his brothers, what will we profit in killing our brother?” (Bereshit, 37:26) It is written in the Gemara (Sanhedrin, 6b), “whoever blesses [congratulates] Yehuda is called a compromiser.” (“sells out.”) Concerning this, it is said in the Gemara (Nedarim, 32b), “at the time of the evil inclination, no one remembers the inclination to good.” When God wants to test man, He causes him to forget the very basis of the prohibition in which he is being tested. So it was with the tribes when they wanted to kill Yosef; then the basis of the prohibition against killing was hidden from them, and he was only saved from counsel outside the realm of Torah. This also saved his brothers from sin. Yehuda was a great sage in the wisdom of this world, therefore he devised advice and said, “what profit [ma beitsa].” This means, even though that it seemed to him that it was lawfully permitted to kill him, as will be explained, still, what benefit will we receive by killing him? (And this was the “counsel outside of the realm of the Torah.”) , (Would I suppose that my father would give me the coat? The coat of many colors was only meant for Yosef. Tashlum.) And from not killing him our father will love us so much more. And immediately when they decided among themselves not to kill him, they saw the basis of the prohibition, that from the side of the law it was also forbidden. One is forbidden to defend himself by means of this advice based on the wisdom of this world anytime he wants to, he may only do this at a time that he is being tested and there is no other advice to be used. However, he is not to separate from the prohibition at a time when he remembers that it is forbidden, for it is forbidden for him to separate himself based on this kind of counsel unless it a direct commandment from the blessed One. This is the explanation of the Gemara, “all who congratulate Yehuda,” meaning for one who thinks that it always proper to do as Yehuda did, is called a compromiser (or one who compromises with the Torah), for even Yehuda used such advice only at a time of testing.

מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, “what will it profit us to kill our brother?” They did not consider killing Joseph a worthwhile act of revenge, as all dead people become forgotten in short order, as David has stated explicitly when he said to G-d in Psalms 59,12: “Do not kill them lest my people will forget them, bring them low, instead;”

מה בצע, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 6, states that anyone who blesses Yehudah for having said this (i.e. saving Joseph’s life) is guilty of insulting him instead, because the reason he gave for saving Joseph’s life was not in order to do him a favour but the reverse. He had implied that if killing him would be profitable they would certainly kill him. The only reason why they did not was because they could not see any advantage in it for themselves in doing so. The Torah spells this out in the next phrase:

וכסינו את דמו, “first we would have to cover up his blood,” (so that we could not even take credit for our deed.) We have to cover up his death and cannot boast about the absence of Joseph or our part in having accomplished this because of our father’s sorrow. When one has fought a war and killed one’s enemy, the revenge is only sweet when the victor can boast about it.

WHAT PROFIT. Mah betza means what profit. Betza (profit) is close in meaning to chefetz (desire). What profit (betza) is there in my blood (Ps. 30:10) is similar. (Ps. 30:10 continues, Shall the dust praise Thee? Shall it declare Thy truth? Hence what desire (mah betza) is there in my death? Similarly the meaning of mah betza in our verse is: what desire is there in slaying our brother.)

?מה בצע, “what financial advantage,” as per Onkelos.

כי נהרוג את אחינו, what does this mean seeing Reuven had already prevented them from killing their brother outright? We must therefore understand Yehudah’s words as meaning: “what are we going to do with him? If we leave him in the pit this is just as bad as having killed him.”

וכסינו את דמו, and cover his blood. He meant they had to conceal his death from their father.

AND WE SHALL CONCEAL HIS BLOOD. “We shall hide the fact of his death.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos similarly says, “and we shall cover up his blood.” The correct interpretation is as its literal sense indicates. It is the custom of those who kill in secret to slay the victim, bury him, and conceal his blood in the earth, even as it says, And he hid him in the sand. (Exodus 2:12.) This was why Judah said to them, “By casting him into the pit we shall kill our brother and cover his blood with dust, for it will so be accounted to us.” (Judah was arguing against throwing him into the pit, for this act would also be accounted to them as murder. This explanation is developed further on in the text.) Now Reuben had instructed them not to spill blood with their hands. Rather, they should throw him into the pit and let him perish there, since the punishment of he who causes bloodshed is not the same as the punishment of one who actually commits the murder. Judah now came and said, “This too will be accounted to us as murder, as if we had killed him.” Such indeed is the truth, as the verse says, And him [Uriah] thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon. (II Samuel 12:9.) The difference between actual murder and causing death is that there is a greater punishment for a murderer and a lesser punishment for the one who indirectly causes death. Thus, the two of them [Reuben and Judah] spoke the truth.

מה בצע means WHAT PROFIT— just as the Targum renders it.

וכסינו את דמו AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD — this signifies and we hide the fact of his death (for they had not shed his blood, but had cast him into a pit to die).

מה בצע, was böte uns der Tod unseres Bruders für unsere Zwecke mehr Vorteile, als wenn wir ihn weit in die Fremde hin von uns entfernen!

What will we gain. By this we will do harm not only to Yoseif but to ourselves, because we will be filled with remorse.

And cover up his blood. Moreover, the deed will not even serve as a deterrent to our other adversaries because we will have to conceal it for our own honor and out of fear of our father.

What profit? as Onkelos translates it. I.e., we should not explain בצע as “theft.”

And we will conceal his death. Rashi is answering the questions: He was not a wild animal or a bird, [whose blood there is a mitzvah to cover. Why does it say, “Cover up his blood”?] Furthermore, they threw him into a pit. What blood was there to be covered?

Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it, what would we gain, 9 if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?

וכסינו את דמו, ”and we will conceal his blood.” According to Rashi these words are a euphemism for “let’s conceal his death.” According to Nachmanides the words may be taken at face value, as it was the custom of murderers ever since the first one, Kayin, to bury the victim under a heap of earth and thus to conceal his blood.

(1) When calling in his sons concerning the events in the distant future, Jacob had in mind what happens to the souls after death. The second call concerned happenings during Messianic times, on this earth. Concerning Reuben, the statement yeter se-eyt refers to additional responsibilities which Reuben should have shouldered being a firstborn, instead of assuming an additional portion of negative virtues. Since the nature of his error was such that it could not be undone, like water which, if it has once hit the ground, cannot be retrieved, Reuben's sin of entering his father's bedroom constituted an irreversible desecration. This deprived him of the birthright, which was transferred to Joseph. Possibly, the hastiness and lack of mature judgment criticized here in Reuben's character may account for the equally hasty decision of the tribe of Reuben later in claiming their part of the ancestral inheritance in the territory formerly belonging to Sichon. It was the tribe of Reuben who was the first to experience exile and dispersion in later years. (2) Shimon and Levi are bracketed together because of the similarity of their actions. Their error was the opposite of that of Reuben. Reuben had acted hastily, without mature judgment. Shimon and Levi's action against Shechem was reprehensible precisely because it was preceded by careful planning. Aristo in Ethics 7, Section 9, already discusses the relative merit of impetuosity versus the person who is in perfect control of his actions who, though carrying out carefully planned deeds, has given no thought to the possibility that he may be wrong. At Shechem, Shimon and Levi sinned because they had planned. When it came to the violence done to Joseph, they could not even claim that their action had been thoroughly thought out. Concerning the first action, Jacob condemns an anger of the aph variety, something that would not evaporate until they had taken collective revenge. In the case of their treatment of Joseph, their action was the result of ratzon, free will, impetuous behavior. When both of these characteristics are found side by side, they spell too much danger for society. Jacob did not want to be associated with this. Therefore, the two have to be separated to reduce their potential for causing harm. Although anger is a negative virtue, it can on occasion be most helpful, since it awakens people to their duty who would otherwise have remained inactive, on the sidelines. Having Levi scattered throughout Israel would ensure that when the occasion would demand it, there would be people that would galvanize the rest of the population into taking action. When Isaiah (63,5) says, "My arm brought me salvation, and my fury upheld me," he refers to exactly such instances of the usefulness of fury. Similarly, the Talmud in Ketuvot 103 reports how Rabbi Yehudah taught his son Rabbi Gamliel how to conduct himself in the office of the President. He told him, "Conduct your office among the exalted and strike fear into the students." (3) Yehudah is the first of the sons whose heroic deeds did not manifest themselves in turning against his own flesh and blood when angered; rather, "Your hand was against the neck of your enemy." Therefore, it is fitting that his brothers pay homage to him. "A young lion;" subsequently he is described as a fully grown lion (both in verse 9). This suggests that Yehudah's personality development proceeded according to accepted norms. He develops from strength to strength, unlike other crowned heads, many of whom experience their greatest moment of glory at the moment they are crowned and ascend the throne. Miteref beni aleeta, you overcame, surmounted the confused thinking of my other sons. Even though you were young in years, you showed mature judgment at the moment it was called for ("What profit is there in killing our brother" 37,26). Jacob proceeds to assure Yehudah that royalty will be hereditary in his descendants throughout the ages. However, just as the lion may crouch ready to pounce, but lacks the power, so the royal descendants of Yehudah will similarly be found lacking in strength on occasion. Such weakness will reflect Yehudah's lack of religious observance during such periods. The Talmud (in Sanhedrin 5) tells us that the term "king" is not used here for Yehudah to convey the idea that in the long years of exile when there will be no Jewish king, leadership functions will still devolve upon the descendants of Yehudah; "The sceptre will not depart," "the lawgiver," refer to such men as the Exilarch, i.e. the leader of the Jews in the Babylonian exile who were members of the tribe of Yehudah, often in a direct line from David. Once the era of Shilo commences, the condition of Yehudah being merely kore-a, crouching, will be over, and the whole world will pay homage to him. The reference then is to Yehudah's restricted leadership role in the interval, not the cessation of such status. The reason that Zevulun in this blessing is mentioned ahead of Issachar is that since the former provides the funding for the latter's sacred vocation, that of devoting himself to Torah, the former is the prime mover, and deserves to be recognized first. Issachar who is like a beast of burden weighed down under its load, represents the qualities without which Torah study devoid of ulterior motives cannot be undertaken successfully. A donkey accepts ever greater burdens without protest, is undemanding in manner, and modest in upkeep. (4) The reason that both sons of Zilpah are mentioned in between the sons of Bilhah, is to prove that Zilpah really was supposed to have become pregnant before Bilhah. Only Laban's trickery had prevented this at the time he tricked Jacob into marrying the wrong girl. (5) Issachar realized the kind of menuchah, rest, that is "good." The reference is to the serenity attainable only through the diligent study of Torah, which ensures that one will reap the ultimate "good" at the end of one's endeavours. (6) After having mentioned the sons of Leah in the order of their birth, Jacob addresses himself to the oldest son of the maids. Samson, descendant of Dan would achieve the position of leader amongst his people, and become the first one to begin and shake off the yoke of the Philistines. Samson's activities were not accompanied by the glory and pomp of a royal Court, but like a snake, a loner, were simply acts of revenge perpetrated as acts of terror from ambush. This is just like the action of a snake which always seems unconcerned about its own fate. Samson died at the site of his greatest triumph, just as a snake presumably gets killed when the horse and rider it has bitten fatally kills the snake near the site of their own death. Since a victory in which the pursuer dies himself is hardly a true victory, the victor not surviving to enjoy the fruits of his deed, Jacob adds the words, "In Your help I trust," expressing the hope that the defender of his people will be spared by Divine intervention. "Gad will form units of troops," even though Gad will be the first of the tribes to be led into captivity (Kings II 10,33), he will eventually re-emerge at the time of redemption. Asher is blessed by being promised material blessings that are rarely found side by side, namely both grain and fruit. Perhaps during the reign of Solomon, he was called upon to supply the royal palace. "He will supply the delicacies for the king." The comparison of Naftali to "a hind let loose," i.e. fleet-footedness, may hint at the climatic conditions in his territory giving rise to earlier harvests than elsewhere in Israel. Possibly, Naftali had silver-tongued men, bearers of good tidings who would lead Israel in thanksgiving to the Lord. (7) Because Joseph was like a beautiful fruit, flourishing by a fountain, attracting admiration from all sides, he also attracted jealousy and envy. As a result, he was quarrelled with and persecuted. He himself, however, kept his ammunition in check instead of fighting back. Thus, he proved himself stronger than his adversaries. His hands were strengthened by the same G-d who had proven His might when aiding Jacob. Therefore, he possessed the merit to become the provider (ro-eh) for his family, his clan. "May you receive your reward from the G-d of your father, may it be stored with the G-d Shadday, and may you receive the bountiful blessings from the heavens above and the depths that lie below, which are typified by the blessings of the breasts and the womb. The blessings of your father (Jacob) are greater than those of my parents (Isaac) in that I may select one of my sons for a special blessing, though all of them deserve blessings.” Each one of the sons of Jacob had a morally justifiable claim to givaut olam, high positions in the world; Joseph, however, had proven outstanding. Therefore, "on his skull more than on that of his brothers," the special blessing. Since the tribe of Levi had not yet been given its special designation replacing the firstborn, and the number of tribes was not to exceed twelve, the blessings for Menashe and Ephrayim are here incorporated in the blessings pronounced on their father Joseph. At the time when Moses blessed the nation, singling out Levi for its share of recognition, Ephrayim and Menashe are once again not mentioned separately, to avoid exceeding the number twelve. Moses therefore only alludes to them by stating that bechor shoro, the firstborn, his ox, are the tens of thousands of Ephrayim and the thousands of Menashe. The importance of Benjamin is alluded to by the fact that he rates the opening of a new paragraph (the paragraph could easily have ended at verse twenty-nine). Just as the word "Yehudah" is usually found at the beginning of a "page," so both of the brothers in whose territory the holy temple was to stand later, share the distinctive treatment in the manner in which their blessings are recorded in the Torah. Since the Priests and Levites will constantly be found in Jerusalem, it is reasonable to expect the members of those tribes to pursue the wisdom obtainable by keeping company with the priests, like wolves that rob in the morning and share the booty at night. Benjaminites will share in the knowledge obtained through close association with the tribe of Levi, and will teach others. Since in this manner they will both learn and teach, they are privy to the essence of all blessings. After all, success in any endeavor is based on study and dissemination of knowledge. The verse "the tribes of Israel are twelve," means that "although Joseph was divided into two tribes, the total still does not exceed twelve tribes, rather Levi is to be regarded as in a class by himself." This is what is meant by the words (verse 28), "Which their father said to them" (perhaps for this reason the scattering of Levi's cities was of quite a different nature than the dispersal of Shimon who had contiguous tribal territory, though it was an enclave within Yehudah). Since seventeen years had elapsed since Jacob and his family had left Canaan, Jacob was concerned lest any claim against the burial place of Abraham should have been registered during the family's absence from the country. Therefore, Jacob repeated all the details of his justified claim to the lands in question. Should any claim originate with the Canaanites, the fact that Ephron had sold to Abraham was essential; should the descendants of Ishmael claim the cave as theirs, the fact that Isaac had been buried there would prove that they had no valid claim thereto. To forestall any claim of Esau to be buried there, the fact that Leah had already been buried there, would attest to its ownership by the family of Jacob. Should the argument be used that the sale by an individual such as Ephron was invalid, since he was merely an individual and it was not in the national interest to sell off land to outsiders, the fact that the beney chet, a national group had approved the sale to Abraham, would invalidate any such claim in the future. (4) We have explained when Abraham died, that geviyah is the failure of one's faculties to function (clinical death), whereas meetah is the destruction and decay of the body's whole structure. Assiphah refers to the return of the soul to its hidden origin. Meetah is not mentioned in connection with Jacob. The reason our Rabbis may not have quoted this passage when they made the statement that "Jacob did not die," is so as not to allow the misconception that the elaborate measures taken to embalm Jacob's body were what is meant by the absence of the term meetah. The impression could easily have been formed that preventing decay of the body is equivalent to preventing meetah, i.e. death. Joseph appears to have had his own royal embalmers, and instead of the standard thirty-day procedure, Jacob was given the royal treatment, i.e. seventy days. This made the removal of the intestines and brain unnecessary (possibly). It appears that during the mourning Joseph observed for his father for seventy days, he did not permit himself to communicate with anyone at the royal court, and spoke to Pharaoh only through intermediaries (50,4). (5) It seems that as soon as Jacob had passed on, his sons were ready to return to the land of Canaan with their families and livestock, but were prevented by the Egyptians who were already planning to eventually enslave Jacob's entire offspring (Midrash Rabbah Tzav). We are told therefore, that the reason the Parshah dealing with Jacob's "death" is closed, i.e. is not separated from the preceding Parshah by a paragraph or line, is to indicate that true independence was lost as soon as Jacob closed his eyes for the last time. The Jews already felt that their freedom of movement had become subject to restrictions, and that is why even a Joseph on his deathbed had to invoke the time when G-d would lead the Jews out of Egypt as the time when his own remains should be transferred to the holy land (50,24). (6) The words va-ya-al immo in 50,9 may refer to the Shechinah leaving Egypt, having accompanied Jacob on his journey to Egypt seventeen years earlier (compare "I will go up with you," 46,4). The Canaanites saw a bad omen in all of this; they emphasized to their deities that this was an Egyptian affair, no business of theirs, and that any harmful fallout should befall Egypt. From then on, the brothers carried Jacob on their shoulders, just as their father had instructed. (7) The brothers had convinced themselves by and by that Joseph's rise to greatness was due entirely to their own action against him, and that because of that he owed them good treatment (as compensation). Their reasoning ran thus: "If only Joseph would hate us and pay us back for the kind of harm (may it happen so to all Jewish children) we have done him." They hoped to receive good in return for evil as a matter of right, not as a gesture of generosity. (8) When speaking in the name of Jacob then, they referred to their treatment of Joseph as evil (50,17), but they referred to themselves as "servants of the G-d of your father," who had acted presumably in consonance with G-d’s will, hence such eminently successful outcome of their actions. (9) Joseph realized that all this convoluted reasoning was the result of his brothers' fear, and he wept at their fear and discomfort. However, Joseph, answering his brothers along the line of their own argument, said, "I am not in place of G-d, so you need no forgiveness from me since your intention was indeed wicked. However, it was G-d who arranged for the outcome to be good not just for me alone but for everyone concerned. Despite your moral guilt however, do not worry, I will look after your needs.” (10) Joseph's raising Ephrayim's grandchildren on his knees is reported to show that Jacob's blessing concerning such grandchildren had been fulfilled. Since Joseph died at a younger age than his brothers, his reassuring remarks on his deathbed concerning the Providence of the Lord are of prime importance. Since his embalming was different from the method employed for his father, his physical death is mentioned. Since his remains were going to be interred in Egypt immediately, the treatment described would be quite adequate.

R. Meir says: This text refers to none but Yehuda, for it is written (Gen 37:26), And Yehuda said to his brethren, What profit [betza] is there if we slay our brother? And whosoever praises Yehuda, blasphemes, as it is written, He who praises the man who is greedy of gain [botzea] blasphemes against the Lord. R. Yehuda ben Korha says: Settlement by arbitration is a meritorious act, for it is written (Zech 8:16), Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates. Surely where there is strict justice there is no peace, and where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But what is the kind of justice with which peace abides? — We must say: arbitration. So it was in the case of David, as we read, And David executed justice and righteousness [charity] towards all his people. Surely where there is strict justice there is no charity, and where there is charity, there is no justice! But what is the kind of justice with which charity abides? — We must say: arbitration!…

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

“Simeon and Levi are brothers; weapons of villainy are their heritage” (Genesis 49:5). Reuben went out and his ears were slumped. [Jacob] began calling: “Simeon and Levi are brothers” – brothers for degradation. He said to them: ‘You were brothers for Dina, as it is written: “Two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dina’s brothers, each took his sword” (Genesis 34:25), but not brothers for Joseph, as you sold him.’ Rabbi Simlai said: In Reuben’s regard it is written: “In order to deliver him from their hand, to restore him to his father” (Genesis 37:22). Reuben was not involved in Joseph’s sale. Judah, too, said to them: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother]?” (Genesis 37:26). These were the eldest; consequently, the two of them sold him. (Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah were the oldest sons of Jacob. If Reuben and Judah were not involved in the sale, it must have been Simeon and Levi who organized it. ) Know that it is so, for when they descended to Egypt, [Joseph] took from them none other than Simeon, as it is stated: “He took Simeon from them [and incarcerated him before their eyes]” (Genesis 42:24). That is why [Jacob] called the two of them as one. “Weapons of villainy” – what are weapons of villainy? He said to them: ‘They have been stolen by you; they are not yours. They belong to Esau, in whose regard it is written: “By your sword you shall live”’ (Genesis 27:40). Those are weapons of villainy, and villainy is none other than Esau, as it is stated: “For the villainy to your brother Jacob” (Obadiah 1:10). (Thus, Jacob was saying that the weapons of Simeon and Levi belong to Esau, who is the subject of the verse in Obadiah. ) “Their heritage [mekheroteihem]” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is a Greek expression, makhirin, makhirin>. Some say: “Mekhuroteihen” – their residences [meguroteihem], just as it says: “Your origins [mekhorotayikh] and your birthplace” (Ezekiel 16:3). “Let my soul not come in their company; with their assembly let my glory not be associated; for in their anger they killed men, and with their will they hamstrung oxen” (Genesis 49:6). “Let my soul not come in their company” – when Zimri will arise and perform that act with Kozbi, let my name not be mentioned there, as it is stated: “The name of the man of Israel who was slain…[Zimri, son of Salu, a prince of a patrilineal house of the Simeonites]” (Numbers 25:14). (The name of Jacob is not mentioned. ) “With their assembly let my glory not be associated” – when Koraḥ will assemble his congregation to dispute, let my name not be associated with them, but rather, “Koraḥ, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehat, son of Levi” (Numbers 16:1), but it did not say: “Son of Jacob.” “For in their anger they killed men [ish]” – did they kill one man [ish]; is it not written: “They killed all the males” (Genesis 34:25)? It is that they were all considered before the Holy One blessed be He like one man. Likewise it says: “Behold [hen], nations may be regarded like a drop from a bucket…” (Isaiah 40:16). What is hen? In the Greek language, hen is one. Likewise it says: “You will smite Midian as one man” (Judges 6:16). Similarly, “the horse and its rider He cast into the sea” (Exodus 15:1) – like one horse and its rider. (The singular terms are used in order to indicate that God cast all the many horses and riders of the Egyptian army into the sea as though they were just one. ) “Cursed is their anger, as it is fierce, and their wrath, as it is harsh; I will divide them in Jacob, and I will disperse them in Israel” (Genesis 49:7). “Cursed is their anger” – he cursed only their anger. Likewise, the wicked Bilam says: “How will I curse, where God has not cursed” (Numbers 23:8)? If at a time of anger he cursed only their anger, can I come to curse them? (If Jacob was angry at Simeon and Levi and yet, with divine spirit, Jacob cursed only their anger and not them, can I, Bilam, curse the Israelites? ) “I will divide them in Jacob” – how so? Twenty-four thousand fell from the tribe of Simeon in [the incident of] Zimri, and its widows were twenty-four thousand. They were divided into two thousand for each and every tribe, as it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.” Everyone who circulates among the doorways [to beg] is from the tribe of Simeon. The Holy One blessed be He said: Levi too will circulate. What did the Holy One blessed be He do? He provided him with his sustenance cleanly, and yet Jacob’s edict was fulfilled. The Holy One blessed be He elevated [Levi] and gave him one-tenth, (The first tithe of produce. ) and he circulates and says: ‘Give me my portion.’ That is why it is stated: “I will divide them in Jacob.”

“Judah, you shall your brothers acknowledge; your hand will be at the nape of your enemies; your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you” (Genesis 49:8). Simeon and Levi, too, emerged with their faces crestfallen, and Judah feared that [Jacob] would mention the incident of Tamar to him. He began calling him: “Judah, you shall your brothers acknowledge [yodukha].” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You confessed [hodeita] (Hodeita has the same root in Hebrew as the term yodukha. ) in the incident of Tamar; your brothers will acknowledge you to be king over them.’ “Your hand will be at the nape [beoref] of your enemies” – this is David, who descended from him, and in whose regard it is written: “My enemies, You had them turn their backs [oref] to me” (II Samuel 22:41). “Your father’s sons will prostrate themselves to you” – Isaac said to Jacob: “Your mother’s sons” (Genesis 27:29), as he had only one wife, Rebecca. But Jacob, who had four wives, said to Judah: “Your father’s sons.” “Judah is a lion cub; from prey, my son, you ascended. He crouches, lies like a lion; and like a great cat, who shall rouse him” (Genesis 49:9). “Judah is a lion cub; from prey, my son, you ascended” – from the prey of Joseph, as you said: “What profit [is there if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). Alternatively, “from prey” – from the prey of Tamar, as you saved four lives – you, Tamar, and her two sons. (When Tamar’s pregnancy became known, Judah sentenced her to death, thinking she had committed sexual immorality. When she proved to him that he was the father, he conceded that she was innocent and ordered her life spared, after which she gave birth to twins. See Genesis, chapter 38. ) The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You saved four; I will save four of your descendants – Daniel, Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya.’ He called him four names: “Judah is a lion cub”; “he crouched and lay like a lion, and like a great cat, [who shall rouse him?]” (Numbers 24:9). (Thus, Judah is referred to as a lion, a cub, again a lion, and a great cat. ) “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, or the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until Shilo arrives; and to him nations will assemble” (Genesis 49:10). “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” – this is the royal throne: “Your throne is of God forever; the staff of righteousness” (Psalms 45:7) – when? “The ruler’s staff from between his feet” – with the arrival of the one to whom kingship belongs, of whom it is written: “With feet will the crown [of pride of the drunkards of Ephraim] be trampled” (Isaiah 28:3). “Until Shilo arrives” – the one to whom kingdom belongs [shelo]. “And to him nations will assemble [yik’hat]” – the one who dulls [mak’heh] the teeth of all the nations, as it is stated: “They will place hand over mouth; their ears will be deafened” (Micah 7:16). Alternatively, “and to him nations will assemble” – the one for whom the nations of the world will assemble, as it is stated: “The root of Yishai, that stands as a banner of the peoples, nations will seek him” (Isaiah 11:10). (In other words, the verse here is a reference to the Messiah, as is the verse in Isaiah. ) “He will bind his foal to the vine, and to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal; he launders his garments in wine, and in the blood of grapes, his clothes” (Genesis 49:11). “He will bind his foal to the vine” – when He will gather all of Israel, which is called “vine,” as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal” – this is the one in whose regard it is written: “He is humble, and riding upon a donkey…” (Zechariah 9:9). Another matter: “And to the branch of the vine his donkey’s foal” – it is the one who plants all of Israel like a vine branch. How does he do so? “I will sprinkle pure water upon you” (Ezekiel 36:25). “He launders his garments in wine” – as wine is abundant within his borders. And in the blood of grapes, his clothes [suto]” – suto is nothing other than error, as it is written: “If your brother…will entice you [yesitekha]…” (Deuteronomy 13:7). (This is referring to one who incites another to engage in idol worship.) If they err in halakha, it will be laundered within his domain. (It will be clarified before the Great Sanhedrin, in the Temple, which is located in the tribal portion of Judah.) “His eyes shall be red from wine, and his teeth white from milk” (Genesis 49:12). “His eyes shall be red [ḥakhlili] from wine” – from here you learn that wine is abundant in his domain, like a person who says to another: ‘Pour for me, and again, as my palate is sweet to me, a sweet palate for me, for me [ḥeikh li li].’ “And his teeth white from milk” – due to the merit of the Torah, “if your sins will be like scarlet, they will be whitened as snow” (Isaiah 1:18).

What the verse said: “For they are life for those who find them…” (Proverbs 4:22) – Rabbi Ḥiyya said: It is a salve for the eye and a remedy for a wound, and a cup of roots for the intestines. A salve for the eyes, as it is written: “The commandment of the Lord is pure, it enlightens the eyes” (Psalms 19:9). A remedy for a wound, as it is written: “It will bring health to your body” (Proverbs 3:8). A cup of roots for the intestines – as it is written: “And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8). Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [lemotzeihem]” – to one who issues them [lemotzian] out of his mouth. (Studies out loud.) There was an incident involving a certain disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, who would complete all his learning in one hour. (He did not say the words out loud.) One time, he fell ill and forgot all his learning. What caused this to befall him? It is because he did not recite it with his mouth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov prayed on his behalf and all his learning was restored. Another matter, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who imparts it [shemotzian] to others. Alternatively, “for they are life for those who find them [motzeihem]” – for one who completes [shemamtzi] (This is a variation of the word mematze, which means exhausts or completes.) all the mitzvot. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “All the mitzva” (Deuteronomy 8:1). What is “all the mitzva”? It is until you complete all the mitzvot. "And an elixir for your bones” (Proverbs 3:8), the 248 limbs that you have. That is "For this mitzva." Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, causes that he will bury his wife and his children. From whom do you derive it? It is from Judah, who began a mitzva but did not complete it. How so? When Joseph came to his brothers and they sought to kill him, as it is stated: “Let us go and kill him” (Genesis 37:20). Judah stood and did not allow them. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “What profit is it if we kill our brother?” (Genesis 37:26). They heeded him because he was king over them. Had he said to them: ‘Let us return him to our father,’ they would have heeded him. Because he began the mitzva but did not complete it, he buried his wife and his children, as it is stated: “Bat Shua, Judah’s wife, died” (Genesis 38:12), and it is written: “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 46:12). Another matter, “for this mitzva” – Rabbi Levi said in the name of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina: Anyone who begins a mitzva but does not complete it, and another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the one who completed it. How so? Moses began the mitzva, as he took Joseph’s bones with him. From where is it derived? It is as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him…” (Exodus 13:19). But because he did not take them into the Land of Israel, it is attributed to Israel, who buried him, as it is stated: “The bones of Joseph that the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32). “That Moses took up from Egypt” is not written here, but rather, “that the children of Israel took up.” Why did they bury him in Shekhem? To what is the matter comparable? It is to thieves who stole a barrel of wine. The homeowner was aware of their presence. He said to them: ‘Enjoy it, but, as you live, after you drink the wine, return the barrel to its place.’ So, when the brothers sold Joseph, they sold him from Shekhem, as it is stated: “Israel said to Joseph: Are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). The Holy One blessed be He said to them: ‘You sold him from Shekhem, return him to Shekhem.’ Since they completed the mitzva, it is attributed to them. That is, “for this mitzva.”

(Fol. 6b) R. Eliezer, the son of R. Jose the Galilean, says: "A court is forbidden to attempt an arbitration, and the [judge] that makes settlements commits a crime; and he who praises the mediators despises the law, as it is said (Ps. 10, 3) The robber blesseth himself when he hath despised the Lord, but let the law cut through the mountain (justice under all circumstances), as it is said (Deut. 1, 17) The judgment belongs to God." And so said Moses our master: "Let the law cut through the mountain." But Aaron [his brother] loved peace, ran after it, and used to make peace between a man and his associate, as it is said (Mal. 2, 6) The law of truth was in his mouth, and falsehood was not found on his lips, in peace equity he walked with Me, and many did he turn away from iniquity. R. Eliezer says: "If one had stolen a saah of wheat and had ground, kneaded and baked it, and separated the heave (Challa) of it, how can he recite a benediction over it? For not only is it not a benediction, but it is rather a blasphemy! Concerning this, the passage reads (Ps. 10, 3) The robber blesses … . despises the Lord." R. Maier says: "The passage, the robber, etc., refers only to Juda, for it is said (Gen. 37, 26) And Judah said unto his brothers, 'What profit (betza) will it be if we slay our brother?' And whoever praises Juda [for his advice] despises the Lord; and concerning him is said: He who blesses Botzea despises the Lord." But R. Joshua b. Karcha said: "On the contrary arbitration is a meritorious act, as it is said (Zech. 8, 16) With truth and the judgment of peace, judge ye in your gates. How is this to be understood? Usually, where there is judgment, there is no peace; and where there is peace, there is no judgment. It must then refer to arbitration, which brings peace. The same must be explained about David, concerning whom it is said (II Sam. 8, 16) And David did what was just and charitable unto all his people. How can these five terms be reconciled? For a thing that is just is not charitable, and if charitable then it is not just. We must therefore say that it refers to arbitration, which contains both." The first Tanna, however, [who said above that arbitration is prohibited], explains the passage thus: He, (David), judged in accordance with the strict law — he acquitted him who was right and held him responsible who was guilty, according to the Law; but when he saw that the loser was poor and could not pay, he used to pay from his own pocket. Hence he did justice to one and charity to the other. Rabbi, however, pointed out the following difficulty, it is written. Unto all his people, and according to the above explanation, it ought to be to the poor. Therefore, said Rabbi: "Although he did not pay from his pocket, it was nevertheless counted as justice and charity; justice to the one, for having returned his money; and charity to the other, for delivering the theft out of his hand." (Fol. 7) All the Tannaim mentioned above differ with R. Tanchum b. Chanilai, who said: "The above-cited verse (Ps. 10) was quoted in reference to the golden calf, of which it is said (Ex. 32, 5) And when Aaron saw this. What did he see? R. Benjamin b. Jepheth said in the name of R. Elazar: 'He saw Chur, who was lying killed before him.' And he thought: 'if I do not listen to them, they will do likewise unto me, and will bring about such a condition as is said (Lam. 2, 20) Shall there be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord the priest and the prophet; for which there shall never be a remedy. It is better for them that I should make the golden calf, and for that probably there will be a remedy by repenting.'" [Hence the above passage].

R. Tarfon and the elders were once sitting in the shade of the grove of Yavneh when this question was once asked before them: Why need it be written (Genesis 37:25) "and their camels laden with spices, balm, and myrrh"? (He answered:) To apprise us of the extent to which the merit of the righteous comes to their aid. For if this "loved one" (Joseph) had gone down with (the usual wares of) the Arabs, would he not have died of the stench of the camels and the itran (a kind of resin)? But the Holy One Blessed be He "arranged" for him (a transport of) sacks full of spices and all goodly fragrances so that he not perish of their stench. (At this,) they said to him: You have taught us, our master, that this transpired in the merit of Joseph. They asked him: Our master, what is the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst? He answered: "Who creates manifold beings and (supplies) their wants. (We thank you for) all that You have created — Life of the worlds!" They: You have taught us, our master, the blessing for one who drinks water to slake his thirst. Our master, in what merit did Judah attain to kingdom? R. Tarfon: You say. They: In the merit of his saying (Genesis, Ibid. 26) "What profit is it if we kill our brother, etc." by which he saved him from death. R. Tarfon: It suffices that this saving atone for his counsel to sell Joseph and not return him to his father.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Another interpretation: "All of the commandment" (Deuteronomy 8:1). If you have began with a commandment, finish all of it. Why? Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who began with a commandment, and afterwards another comes and finishes it, it will be called according to the name of the one who finishes it." From who do you learn [this]? From Moshe. When Israel left Egypt, what is written? "And Moses took the bones of Yosef with him" (Exodus 13:19). All of the people were involved in the plunder and he was taking care of Yosef's bones. He went and stood among the coffins. He called out and said, "Yosef, Yosef, the time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem His children. The Divine Presence awaits [you], and Israel and the clouds of glory await [you]. If you will make yourself appear good, but if not, we will be free of your vow." [Whereupon] his coffin immediately stirred, and [Moses] took it and departed. Moshe departed in the wilderness and did not enter the Land. [So] Israel brought in Yosef's bones and buried them. And the commandment was draped upon them, as it is stated (Joshua 24:32), "The bones of Joseph, which the Children of Israel had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shekhem." Therefore He said to them, "All of the commandment." Rabbi Yannai said, "Anyone who begins a commandment but does not finish it will bury his wife and two of his sons." From who do you learn [this]? From Yehudah, [where it is stated (Genesis 37:26),] "And Yehudah said to his brothers, 'What gain (betsa) etc.?'" They sat to prepare for the bread [and eat their meal]. He said to them, "We are going to kill our brother and then recite a blessing [over the bread]?" As it is stated (Psalms 10:3), "the one that loots (botsea) and blesses reviles the Lord." Hence is it written, "What gain, etc." "Come, let us sell him to the Yishmaelites" (Genesis 37:27). And they listened to him, as he was a king. And had he said to them to bring him back to his father, they would have listened to him. But rather he began with the commandment and did not finish it. Hence one who begins with a commandment should finish all of it. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who learns Torah but does not fulfill it, it is better for him to have his placenta roll over his face [and smother him], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:1), 'guard to keep.'" Rabbi Acha said, "Anyone who guards it to keep it, merits that the holy spirit should descend upon him, as stated (Psalms 89:1), 'A psalm of wisdom (maskil) of Eitan the Ezrachite, etc.' And so [too] did He say to Yehoshua (Joshua 1:8), 'Let not this Book of the Torah cease from your mouth... [and then will you comprehend (taskil)].'" Hence is it written, "to guard to keep."

"To lead in melodies. It is known in Judah, God is in Israel. This is what the verse says (Hosea 5:9): 'Ephraim shall become a desolation in the day of rebuke; among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure.' When the ten tribes were exiled and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin remained, the nations of the world began to say that they are no different than other nations, as they are the guests of God. Therefore, they were not exiled. As it says: 'Among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure.' At that same moment, God became known in Judah, and His name was great in Israel. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said: 'When the Israelites stood at the sea, they argued with one another, one saying, "I will go down first," and the other saying, "I will go down first." From this, Nachshon ben Aminadav jumped into the sea, and regarding him, it is written (Psalms 69:2): "Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck." Moses stood in prayer, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: "The Israelites are in distress, and you prolong your prayer? Speak to the children of Israel and let them go forward." You, therefore, lift up your rod. Therefore, Judah merited to have sovereignty in Israel, as it says (Psalms 114:2-3): "Judah became God's sanctuary, Israel His dominion. The sea saw and fled." It is known in Judah, God is great in Israel, for He is great among Israel. It was said to him: "When you perform a kindness for Judah, it is as if you are performing a kindness for all of Israel, as all of Israel is called by the name of Judah." Another explanation for why Judah merited sovereignty is that his disciples asked Rabbi Tarfon in the shade of the Shukei Binyamin (an area in Jerusalem) why Judah merited sovereignty. He answered them, "Because he confessed regarding the incident with Tamar." They told him that Dia should atone for her immorality. He asked why, and they replied that it was because he had said, "What profit is there if we kill him?" (Genesis 37:26). They also told him that Dia should atone for his sale of Joseph, and he responded that it was because he had said, "Please let your servant stay as a slave to my lord instead of the boy" (Genesis 44:33). They then asked him about the evening pledge that he had fulfilled, and he replied, "By what merit did I do it? Only because I leaped into the waves of the sea." For when all the tribes were standing and none of them would descend into the sea, one tribe would say, "I will go down first," and another would say, "No, I will go down first." Benjamin, however, wanted his tribe to be the first to go down. So Nachshon ben Aminadav jumped into the waves with his tribe, even though they tried to stone him, and he was saved. The verse in Psalms (68:28) states, "Benjamin, the youngest, is their ruler. The leaders of Judah come with their throngs." This refers to the fact that the people of Judah wanted to stone him and were delayed, while Benjamin went ahead and was the first to descend. In this way, Nachshon merited to become a king, as it is written (Psalms 114:2), "Judah became God's sanctuary, Israel His dominion." Therefore, the kingship of Israel belonged to the tribe of Judah. "God is known in Judah."

And see another extremely awesome thing which unraveled itself in the course of time, measure for measure. For Joseph stumbled in the sin of lashon hara [against his brothers] as related in the Torah. And his brothers did not want, by any means, to forgive him, relating to him in the extreme of din, saying (Bereshith 37:20): "Let us go and kill him (that is: "Let us sic the dogs on him" and the like,) and they wished to sell him as a slave because of this, though Judah defended him and did not allow them to kill him, as it is written (Bereshith 37:26): "What profit if we kill our brother, etc." Still, he by no means wanted to forgive him, saying (Ibid. 27): "Let us go and sell him." And because of this, in the succeeding generations, when one of the seed of Judah stumbled in the issur of accepting lashon hara, the distinctive one of the seed of Joseph would by no means forgive him. And who is it that stumbled in this way? No less than our lord, King David, may peace be upon him, who believed the evil that Tziva spoke of Mefibosheth, and said (II Samuel 19:30): "You [Mefibosheth] and Tziva shall divide the field" — at which a Heavenly voice came forth and said: "Rechavam [of the seed of Judah] and Yaravam [of the seed of Joseph] shall divide the kingdom." And, as it is written in Scripture, that after the death of Solomon, Yaravam and all of Israel came to Rechavam and besought him to ease somewhat his yoke upon them and they would serve him, and he answered them (I Kings 12:14): "My father [Solomon] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpion-thorns" — whereupon all of them answered (II Chronicles 10:16): "Each to your tents, O Israel," and they crowned Yaravam. And the underlying cause was David's acceptance of lashon hara. As our sages of blessed memory said: "If David had not accepted lashon hara, the kingdom of the house of David would not have been divided and Israel would not have served idolatry, and we would not have been exiled from our land." And all of this is "measure for measure," as we have written.

Some commentators even claim that the tribe of Yehudah had already begun its journey, but was forced to return in her honour. The author of צרור המור writes at the end of Parshat Beha-alotcha, that there was an element of מדה כנגד מדה in this, since it was Yehudah who had exclaimed at the time the brothers wanted to kill Joseph "מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו … לכו ונמכרנו" "what profit is there in killing our brother, let us rather sell him!" This comment was held against him (Genesis 37,26). Miriam, by her very nature ignored material gains, as is evident from the danger she put herself in when defying Pharaoh's instructions to kill all male Jewish babies. On the contrary, she actively helped them survive. The repetition of the statement ותחיינה את הילדים in Exodus 1,18, suggests that she provided victuals for them out of her personal funds. This is why she experienced the honour of the tribe of Yehudah returning to wait for her until she had been healed of her צרעת.

כל המצוה, “All the instruction, etc.” our author understands the word כל in our verse not so much as “all,” i.e. each and every, but as “the whole commandment.” Once you have begun to fulfill a commandment you must complete what you have undertaken. This rule has been spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, chapter 1, halachah 8. The text is: when someone has commenced to perform a commandment he is told to complete it. If someone has commenced to perform a commandment and it is completed by someone else, the last person gets the credit for having performed it. The source of this ruling is traced to Moses who had commenced the commandment of transferring Joseph’s remains to the land of Israel, (Exodus 13,19) but who could not complete it as he never crossed the Jordan. The credit for burying his remains in the land of Israel is therefore given to the Jewish people, as we know from Joshua 24,32: “and the Children of Israel buried Joseph’s remains which they had brought with them from Egypt, and they were interred in the city of Sh’chem on a plot of land which his father Yaakov had acquired for the price of 1000 kessito as spelled out in Genesis 37,27. This plot became an ancestral heritage to the tribe of Joseph.” (Compare Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah) folio 13. Rabbi Sh’muel bar Nachmani is quoted in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13, as saying that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment but fails to complete it (not by circumstances beyond his control), he will wind up burying his wife and his children. He adds that we know this from Yehudah (Yaakov’s son) compare Genesis 37,26, who said: “what profit is there in killing our brother Joseph.” Yehudah, of course buried both his wife and two of his sons, as we read in Genesis 38, 7-12. Some scholars add that this was why the brothers demoted him as we know from the beginning of that chapter. Instead of saving Joseph, the brothers sat down to eat their meal, and in the interval Joseph was taken out of the pit by Ishmaelites and sold as a slave. Yehudah said that they could not pronounce benedictions of G–d while planning to commit murder of their brother. They therefore interrupted, and sold Joseph, before they sat down again to eat. Yehudah is perceived as having begun to save Joseph from death but not having brought him back safely to his father. The Torah had testified that the brothers listened to him, so that it could be assumed that they would also have agreed to bring him back to his father. At any rate, this is the meaning of Moses referring to כל מצוה, “the whole commandment.”

The reason I tell this story here is that it is one of the powerful and unexpected lessons of Parashat Vayeshev. Judah, the brother who proposed selling Joseph into slavery (Gen. 37:26), had “gone down” to Canaan where he married a local Canaanite woman (38:1). The phrase “gone down” was rightly taken by the sages as full of meaning. (According to midrashic tradition (Midrash Aggada, Pesikta Zutreta, Sekhel Tov), Judah was “sent down” or excommunicated by his brothers for advising them to sell Joseph after the grief they saw their father suffer. See also Rashi ad loc.) Just as Joseph had been brought down to Egypt (39:1), so Judah had been morally and spiritually brought down. Here was one of Jacob’s sons doing what the patriarchs insisted on not doing: marrying into the local population. It is a tale of sad decline.

מטרף בני עלית , “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself.” Yaakov referred to his suspicion that it had been Yehudah who had “torn Joseph like a wild beast” (37,33). Yaakov refers to Yehudah’s having had second thoughts when he had said: “what advantage is there in killing our brother?”

מכל העם אנשי חיל, “from amongst all the people men of accomplishment.” The term אנשי חיל is a collective term and presupposes that these people possessed all the individual qualities Yitro had enumerated such as being “G’d-fearing, men of truth, people despising money.” The title אנשי חיל is applied to people who can lead the nation by judging fairly. It is impossible for fair judgment to be dispensed unless those dispensing it possess reverence for G’d and His Torah, despise ill gotten gain such as bribes, and are truthful. Our sages (Sanhedrin 7) have stated that a true judge is someone who in his mind’s eye constantly sees a sword at his neck above, and gehinom opening before him below, he being in the middle. If he merits it he will be saved from both, if not he will be afflicted by both. Judges must also be “men of truth,” meaning they must love truth as a value by itself choosing to side only with truth, refusing to accept arguments based on lies. They must personify the principle expressed in Exodus 23,7 applying to judges (according to Ibn Ezra) “keep your distance from anything deceitful.” They must also be שונאי בצע, i.e. display a disdain for money. This applies to a disdain for their own money, money acquired honestly (‎Sifri on Deut. 1,17). It goes without saying that they must hate money that was taken from others illegally. (compare Genesis 37,26). The author quotes Scripture to show that the word בצע may mean simply ”money.” An alternative meaning of the word בצע may be “robbery.” The requirement of the psychological makeup of the personality of a judge would have to be a hatred against anything acquired by means of violence direct or indirect, i.e. the threat of violence. In order to appreciate how highly these virtues were esteemed by the Torah we need only look at instances of the Torah complimenting outstanding individuals. Noach (Genesis 6,9) was praised for being righteous and perfect (תמים), a contrast to the violence which permeated mankind at the time and resulted in the decree of the deluge. Avraham was praised and instructed to be תמים, (Genesis 17,1). Yaakov was described as תם, (Genesis 25,27) Moses was described as extremely ענו, humble, the opposite of arrogant, demanding. All of this goes to show that the principal quality of a judge is not his intellect but his personal virtue. Just as the trunk of a tree is not its most important component but the fruit it yields, our sages taught us that the meaning of Psalm 111,10 שכל טוב לכל עושיהם, is that not the לומדיהם, the intelligence itself, is the principal value of a clever brain but the use to which he puts such intelligence., i.e. עושיהם (Berachot 17).

HATING UNJUST GAIN. “Men who disdain their own money in a law-suit, just as we say: (Baba Bathra 58b.) ‘Any judge from whom money is collected by a judgment is not qualified as a judge.’” Thus Rashi’s language. By this, Rashi meant to explain that they disdain all money which they know can be collected from them by law, and return it themselves even though it is truly theirs, such as the case wherein one bought a slave without witnesses, (And the owner comes to reclaim him. Now even though the slave is rightfully the buyer’s, the latter knows that because he has no witnesses who can attest to the sale, the original owner will regain possession of the slave in a law-suit. The buyer therefore voluntarily returns the slave to the original owner. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 381, as to why Ramban mentioned such a specific case.) or a similar example. But the text in the Mechilta is not so, [i.e., as Rashi commented]. Rather, this is the way it is taught there: (Mechilta on the verse here.) “‘Hating unjust gain. I.e., those who, when sitting in judgment, disdain to accept money.’ These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im says: ‘Hating unjust gain. I. e., those who disdain their own money. If they disdain their own money, how much more will they despise the money of their friends!’” The explanation [of this text of the Mechilta] is that Rabbi Yehoshua interprets the expression hating ‘botza’ as meaning “hating bribery,” the usage of the word [betza] being similar to: Every one is greedy for ‘botza’ (gain); (Jeremiah 6:13.) Each one ‘l’bitzo’ (to his gain), one and all. (Isaiah 56:11.) Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im explained that hating ‘botza’ means that they despise abundance of money and have no desire to increase their silver and gold, something like the verse, If I rejoiced because my wealth was great, and because my hand had gotten much. (Job 31:25.) Money [or profit] is called betza [in Hebrew]: What ‘betza’ (profit) is it if we slay our brother? (Genesis 37:26.) Is it any ‘betza’ (profit or advantage) to the Almighty that thou art righteous? (Job 22:3.) And thou shalt devote ‘bitz’am (their gain) unto the Eternal, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth. (Micah 4:13.) Again, I have seen in the Yelamdeinu: (See Sifre, Devarim 17. For the name Yelamdeinu, see Seder Bo, Note 196.) “Hating unjust gain [means] those who disdain their own money, and needless to say, they disdain the money of others. They are the ones who say, ‘Even if this man will burn my stack, even if he will destroy my plants, I will render judgment correctly.’” This is the intent of Rabbi Eleazar of Modi’im, who said that they disdain their own money, meaning that they pay no regard to their property when sitting in judgment, that is, if they will suffer a loss of money on account of it. Moses further admonished them on this, saying, Ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man. (Deuteronomy 1:17.) [Thus according to the Yelamdeinu], betza means money, as I have explained. Onkelos rendered it: “those who hate to receive money.” But the word “money,” [as Onkelos uses it], does not mean a bribe, [which of course is forbidden in itself]. It means rather that they should never accept money from people as a gift or loan, so that they should show them no favoritism at the time of judgment. It is similar to what the Rabbis have said: (Kethuboth 105b.) “A judge who is in the habit of borrowing things [from his neighbors] is forbidden to act as judge in a law-suit involving them.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, men of truth, hating ‘botza’, means those who love the truth and hate “oppression.” When they see oppression and violence, they cannot tolerate them, their whole desire being only to deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor. (Jeremiah 21:12.)

שנאי בצע, people who hated ill gotten gains. Bribery and robbery are often referred to as בצע. (compare Chabakuk 2,9). Compare also Genesis 37,26 where Yehudah when saying מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו, means: “any gain that we would derive from killing our brother would be illegitimate, illegal.” In Job 27,8 we find a similar use of the word בצע.

שמעון ולוי אחים SIMEON AND LEVI WERE BRETHREN in the plot against Shechem and against Joseph. Scripture states, (Genesis 37:19—20) “And they said one to another… (literally, one to his brother) come now therefore and let us slay him” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9). Now, who were these? Should you say Reuben or Judah was one of them — but they were not consenting parties to slaying him (cf. Genesis 37:21, Genesis 37:22 and Genesis 37:26). Should you say they were the sons of the handmaids (Dan, Naphtali, Gad or Asher) — their hatred of Joseph was not so perfect a hatred that they would wish to kill him for it is said, (Genesis 37:2) “whilst a lad he used to be with the sons of Bilhah and with the sons of Zilpah etc.” Issachar and Zebulun would certainly not have spoken thus in the presence of their elder brothers. Consequently one must needs say that they were Simeon and Levi whom their father called “brethren” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 9).

(In the Tosephta (1:3) an anonymous statement.) Rebbi Meir says, why does the verse say (Ps. 10:3.) , he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal? These are Joseph’s brothers, as it is is said (Gen. 37:26.) : What is the gain if we slay our brother, etc.”

Rebbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rebbi Simon: Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed (A more complete list of names is in the parallel, Midrash Esther ad 1:13.) . One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures (Whether in Gentile courts the presiding judge also votes last in criminal proceedings.) . He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He wo said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said (When the brothers discussed what to do with Joseph, Jehudah volunteered his plan not to kill Joseph (Gen. 37:26) even though he was the fourth of the brothers (but the oldest, Reuben, was absent.) Since this happened before the revelation of Sinai, one has to assume that the brothers followed general Noahide rules.) , Memukhan said (Esth. 1:13 In the trial of Washti, the last named of the Persian grandees gave his opinion first.) ? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said (Since in both cases no other opinions are recorded, we do not know in which order they spoke. Only the opinion which was agreed to in the end is mentioned.) .

Rabbi Meir says: The term botze’a employed in that verse was stated only with regard to Judah, as it is stated: “And Judah said to his brothers: What profit [betza] is it if we slay our brother and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:26–27). And consequently, anyone who blesses Judah for this act is cursing God, and of this it is stated: “And the covetous [uvotze’a] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord,” interpreted homiletically as: “And whoever blesses the profiteer [botze’a] despises the Lord.”

Rabbi Elazar says with regard to one who initiates performance of a mitzva but does not complete it when capable of doing so: He is also demoted [moridin] from his position of greatness, as it is written: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down [vayyered] from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah” (Genesis 38:1). Usage of the term “went down” indicates that the rest of Judah’s brothers had demoted him from his position of greatness because he began the process of saving Joseph, but he did not complete it.

“What is to be gained from my death, (Lit. “blood.”) from my descent into the Pit? Can dust praise You? Can it declare Your faithfulness?

Yehudah said to his brothers, What [monetary benefit] will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?

And Jehuda said to his brethren, What profit of mammon should we have if we killed our brother, and covered his blood?

It happened [once] with Rebbi Tarfon, that he was sitting in the shade of a dovecote, on Shabbat, in the afternoon. They (i.e. the servants) brought in front of him a bucket of cold [water to drink]. Rebbi Tarfon said to his students, “[A person] who drinks water to quench his thirst, what Beracha does he say [before drinking the water]?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Borei Nefashot Vechesronan (Who Created Souls and Made Them Lack).” [Then] he said to them, “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “It says [in the Torah], ‘And they sat down to eat bread, and they lifted up their eyes, and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, and their camels are carrying gum, balsam and resin, transporting them to Egypt.’ (Genesis 37:25) Is not it the way of the Arabs to [usually] carry bad smelling skins and tar? But rather [what happened was that God] placed that righteous man (i.e. Yosef) among favorable things. Is not this a Kal Vechomer (a derivation from minor to major)? Just like at the time when [God] is angry [at] the righteous [people, He still] has mercy on them, then at the time [of God’s] mercy, how much more so.”...

[Then] he (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. his students), “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” They said to him, “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” It happened [once] with four elders, that they were sitting in the gatehouse of Rebbi Yehoshua. [They were] Elazar Ben Matya, Chaninah Ben Chachinai, Shimon Ben Azzai, and Shimon Hateimani. And they were involved [in discussing] what Rebbi Tarfon taught to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” They have added [another source to that explanation] on their own. “[It says in the book of Iyov], ‘… that which the wise related from their fathers and did not withhold. To them alone the earth was given…’ (Job 15:18-19)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. to the four elders), “Do they give reward for a transgression? But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because he (i.e. Yehudah) saved his brother (i.e. Yosef) from death, as it is said, ‘Yehudah said to his brothers, “What benefit [will we have] if we kill our brother?”’ (Genesis 37:26) and it is written, ‘Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites…’ (Genesis 37:27)”8 He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “It is enough that [the act of] saving [him] should [serve] as forgiveness for the [act of] selling [him to the Ishmaelites]. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because of [Yehudah’s] humility, as it is said, ‘And now your servant (i.e. Yehudah) will become a slave to my master (i.e. Yosef) instead of the boy (i.e. Binyamin).’ (Genesis 44:33) Also [the only reason that] Shaul merited the kingship [of Israel] was due to [his] humility, as it is said, ‘… may be my father will turn his attention away from the donkeys and will start to worry about us.’ (I Samuel 9:5) [Since Shaul said “us” and not “me”] he considered his servant as [important as] himself, but Shmuel did not do so, but rather [he said], ‘Your father stopped worrying about the donkeys and is worried about you, saying “What will happen to my son?”’ (I Samuel 10:2) And when he (i.e. Shaul) runs away from [accepting his newly appointed role of] leadership what does it say? ‘And they have asked God, “Is the man even here?” and God said, “Here he is hiding by the vessels.”’ (I Samuel 10:22)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “Is not he (i.e. Yehudah) a cosigner? And in the end [it is the responsibility] of a cosigner to fulfill his pledge. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “[The reason the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel is] because they sanctified God’s name on the sea. When [all of] the tribes came and stood by the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first]’ and this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first].’ The tribe of Yehudah jumped up and went in first and sanctified God’s name [by doing so]. And regarding that moment it says [in Tehillim], ‘Save me God, because the water is up to my soul.’ (Psalms 69:2) And it also says, ‘When Yisrael was going out of Egypt, the children of Yakov from the nation of a foreign tongue, Yehudah was His sanctifier…’ (Psalms 114:1-2) Since Yehudah sanctified God’s name on the sea, therefore ‘…Yisrael his subjects.’ (ibid.) ”

“Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites ….” (Bereshit, 37:27) The tribes had first sentenced him to death, since he had spoken of their evils to their father. In their view this sin was in the very root of his life, God forbid, for creating a separation between them and their father was in their eyes akin to separating the Holy One, blessed be He, from the community of Israel, the Shekhina. At that time Yaakov was the “Tsaddik Yesod Olam,” the righteous one who is the foundation of the world, on whom the entire world rests, and he was the place where God revealed himself in this world, and they were at that time all of Israel. They were all included in the word “One” in Shema Yisroel, Echad (alef, 1; het, 8; dalet, 4). One was Yaakov; eight were the eight children of Leah and Rachel; and four were the four children of the handmaids. They understood that Yosef wanted to separate this unification. Only Yehuda in his wisdom said that the judgment was not arbitrated in this way. Maybe he is good and we are mistaken about him. In that case we should not do anything about him, and only let God make it clear concerning him, and if he is good in his root then certainly God will rescue him from all sin and he will not be lost in exile. So therefore God refined him, purifying his soul through the incident with the wife of Potiphar. For the brit of the foreskin corresponds to the brit of the tongue (Sefer Yetsira, 1:43), and when he emerged refined from this, then he was also refined and clean concerning the loshan horah (evil speech) of which his brothers had suspected him.

וישמעו אחיו, “his brothers listened to him,” i.e. they accepted his logic;” they said that already at the covenant between the pieces between Avraham and G-d in Genesis chapter 15, certain harsh decrees had been revealed as becoming the fate of Avraham’s descendants before they would conquer the land of Canaan and settle in it. Seeing that they were all part of Avraham’s seed, it would be better for them to be sold together with him else the decree would be suffered only by Joseph. (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher item 159)

HE IS OUR BROTHER OUR FLESH. He is as our flesh (They obviously were not all one flesh. Hence what Judah meant was: he is as our flesh, even though he did not use the word as (Weiser).) since we all came from one flesh. (We all come from the same parents who became one flesh, as in I.E.’s comment on Gen. 2:22 (Weiser). However, they did not all have the same mother. Therefore the interpretation must be as follows: we all came from the same father.)

לכו ונמכרנו לישמעאלים, “come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.” He thought in his dreams that he would rule over us and that we would become his slaves; let us sell him into slavery instead.

לכו, we already explained this expression on verse 20.

אל תהי בו, to be the indirect cause of his death. If we are going to sell him he will not die.

וישמעו AND THEY HEARKENED — The Targum renders this by “and they accepted it from him” (i.e., they agreed with him). Wherever the verb שמע means agreeing with a person’s statement — obeying — as here, and as (28:7) “and Jacob had hearkened (וישמע) to his father”, and (Exodus 24:7) “We will do and we will obey (ונשמע)” it is translated in the Targum by קבל “accepting”, but wherever it merely means hearing with the ear, as e. g. (3:8) “And they heard (וישמעו) the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden”, and (27:5) “and Rebecca heard (שומעת;”, and (31:1) “And Israel heard (וישמע)”, and (Exodus 16:12) “I have heard (שמעתי) the murmurings of the children of Israel”, — all such cases are rendered by various forms of ושמעו: שמע “and they heard“, ושמעת “and she heard”, ושמע “and he heard”,שמיע ,קדמי “there is heard before Me” (I have heard).

לכו ונמכרנו, and this will be an appropriate measure for measure punishment for him; he wanted to make slaves out of us; now he himself will become a slave.

Go and we will sell him as a slave to the arriving Ishmaelites. They will take him far away from here, and at the very least, let our hand not be directly upon him, as after all, he is our brother, our flesh, and we should not harm him. His brothers heeded Judah’s suggestion.

“Let us not do away with him ourselves” [37:27]. That is to say, let us not kill him with our hands. We will not do this. Ramban writes. The snakes in the pit went into their holes. If his brothers had seen that the snakes were in the pit and were not harming Joseph, the brothers would have understood that Joseph was holy and was righteous. How would it be appropriate that they should sell Joseph? (Ramban, Genesis, 37:22.)

“They sat to eat bread, and they lifted their eyes and saw, and, behold, a caravan of Ishmaelites was coming from Gilad, and their camels were bearing spices, and balm, and ladanum, going to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). “They sat to eat bread” – Rabbi Aḥva bar Ze’eira said: The transgression of the tribes is remembered forever; it gave hope to the world. “They sat to eat bread” – he gave everyone in the world bread to eat. (The sale of Joseph led to his appointment to viceroy in Egypt and to his role as dispenser of food during the famine.) “And they lifted their eyes and saw…” – Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: But is it not typical of the Ishmaelites to bear only hides and tar? Rather, see what the Holy One blessed be He prepared for that righteous one at that moment: Sacks filled with spices, so that the wind would blow through them [and provide a pleasant smell] to counteract the odor of the Arabs. (Because the Ishmaelites generally transported foul-smelling substances, they and their equipment had an unpleasant odor. God arranged for the caravan carrying Joseph to Egypt to have pleasant-smelling spices in order to mask the foul, unpleasant odor. ) “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood” (Genesis 37:26). “Judah said to his brothers…” – Rabbi Yehuda bar Ilai said: The verse is speaking in praise of Judah. In three places, Judah spoke before his brothers and they crowned him king over them. (They accepted his advice or his leadership. ) “Judah said to his brothers”; “Judah and his brothers came [.…And Judah said]” (Genesis 44:14); (This was after Benjamin was caught with Joseph’s goblet; Judah led the brothers in their return to Joseph and spoke as their representative.) “Judah approached him [and said]” (Genesis 44:18). (This was after Joseph informed them that Benjamin would be his slave. Judah again spoke on behalf of the brothers, argued for Benjamin’s release, and offered to take Benjamin’s place as a slave. ) “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let our hand not be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers heeded him” (Genesis 37:27). “Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” – they said: Let us adopt the way of the world. Canaan, who sinned, (Canaan reported Noah’s nakedness to Noah’s sons (see Bereshit Rabba 36:7). ) was he not cursed to be a slave? This one, too, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites. (Joseph had slandered his brothers (Genesis 37:2; see above, section 7). Therefore, they considered him worthy of a similar fate to that of Canaan. ) “His brothers heeded him.”

Now therefore, please let your servant remain instead of the youth." This is similar to what is stated in the Book of Esther (Esther 2:5), "Now there was a Jewish man in Shushan." Was he from the tribe of Judah that he is called a Jew? Wasn't it Benjamin who is described as a man of the right-hand side (Genesis 44:17)? However, when the tribes went down to Egypt and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack, he searched all of them, and it was found in Benjamin's possession. Judah said to him, "Please, my lord, we already have a bad incident. I sold my brother, as it is written, 'Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites' (Genesis 37:27), and now you want me to bring back the same evil? I sold my brother as a slave, and now I am taking him back to be a slave. I have no standing either before my father or before the Holy One, blessed be He. I must be a slave, as I sold Joseph, my brother. It is just that I should be a slave for him. This is indicated by the phrase 'Now therefore, please let your servant remain.' God said to him, 'Judah, you have offered yourself as collateral for Benjamin; therefore, the Redeemer who will arise from you over Israel will be named after you.' This is why it is written, 'Now there was a Jewish man.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Another interpretation: "All of the commandment" (Deuteronomy 8:1). If you have began with a commandment, finish all of it. Why? Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who began with a commandment, and afterwards another comes and finishes it, it will be called according to the name of the one who finishes it." From who do you learn [this]? From Moshe. When Israel left Egypt, what is written? "And Moses took the bones of Yosef with him" (Exodus 13:19). All of the people were involved in the plunder and he was taking care of Yosef's bones. He went and stood among the coffins. He called out and said, "Yosef, Yosef, the time has come for the Holy One, blessed be He, to redeem His children. The Divine Presence awaits [you], and Israel and the clouds of glory await [you]. If you will make yourself appear good, but if not, we will be free of your vow." [Whereupon] his coffin immediately stirred, and [Moses] took it and departed. Moshe departed in the wilderness and did not enter the Land. [So] Israel brought in Yosef's bones and buried them. And the commandment was draped upon them, as it is stated (Joshua 24:32), "The bones of Joseph, which the Children of Israel had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shekhem." Therefore He said to them, "All of the commandment." Rabbi Yannai said, "Anyone who begins a commandment but does not finish it will bury his wife and two of his sons." From who do you learn [this]? From Yehudah, [where it is stated (Genesis 37:26),] "And Yehudah said to his brothers, 'What gain (betsa) etc.?'" They sat to prepare for the bread [and eat their meal]. He said to them, "We are going to kill our brother and then recite a blessing [over the bread]?" As it is stated (Psalms 10:3), "the one that loots (botsea) and blesses reviles the Lord." Hence is it written, "What gain, etc." "Come, let us sell him to the Yishmaelites" (Genesis 37:27). And they listened to him, as he was a king. And had he said to them to bring him back to his father, they would have listened to him. But rather he began with the commandment and did not finish it. Hence one who begins with a commandment should finish all of it. Rabbi Yochanan said, "Anyone who learns Torah but does not fulfill it, it is better for him to have his placenta roll over his face [and smother him], as it is stated (Deuteronomy 8:1), 'guard to keep.'" Rabbi Acha said, "Anyone who guards it to keep it, merits that the holy spirit should descend upon him, as stated (Psalms 89:1), 'A psalm of wisdom (maskil) of Eitan the Ezrachite, etc.' And so [too] did He say to Yehoshua (Joshua 1:8), 'Let not this Book of the Torah cease from your mouth... [and then will you comprehend (taskil)].'" Hence is it written, "to guard to keep."

This they shall give (Exod. 30:12). Observe that Israel was so beloved that even their sins brought them considerable benefit. If their sins could do that, how much more so would their meritorious deeds. You find that when Jacob sent Joseph to his brethren, they watched him approach and said to one another: Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, therefore, and let us slay him (Gen. 37:19–20). They hurled him into the pit and said: Let us eat and drink, and then we will kill him. After eating and drinking, they were about to say grace when Judah said to them: We are planning to take a life, yet now we would bless God. If we should do this, we would be blaspheming against God and not blessing Him. Because of this Scripture says: And the covetous vaunteth himself, though he condemn the Lord (Ps. 10:3). Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and let not our hand be upon him (Gen. 37:27). (And they all agreed.)

R. Joshua the son of Levi declared: Observe that the ways of the Holy One, blessed be He, are not like the ways of man. A man cuts himself with a knife and heals himself with plaster, but the Holy One, blessed be He, heals with the very thing with which he wounds, as is said: For I will restore health unto thee, and I will heal thee of thy wounds (Jer. 30:17). Joseph was sold because of a dream, as is said: Behold the dreamer cometh … come, let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:27), and he governed because of a dream, as is said: And it came to pass at the end of two full years that Pharaoh dreamed (Gen. 41:1).

Another matter: “Go descend” – Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: Moses was ostracized and rebuked. (He was distanced from God and sent down from the mountain, like one who is sent away in shame from a human court. ) “Descend” is nothing other than ostracism. From where do you derive this? When Joseph’s brothers sold him and they went to console their father, he was not consoled. They said: (The brothers said to each other. ) It was Judah who did all these things to us, for had he not sought it, we would not have sold him. Just as he said to us: ‘Do not kill him,’ and we heeded him, had he said: ‘Do not sell him,’ we would have heeded him. Instead, he said to us: “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). They stood and ostracized him, as it is stated: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It should have said only: “Judah went”; he was in descent from his brothers. (The reason it states “Judah descended” is to indicate that he did not merely leave. His brothers stripped him of his elevated status and ostracized him. ) Just as “descended [vayered]” that is stated there connotes ostracism, so too, “descend [red]” that is written here connotes ostracism. This is analogous to a province that sent an emissary to crown the king. Before he arrived, the residents of the province overturned the idols and stoned the images [of the king]. The prominent leaders of the province wrote to the king. (They informed him of what had occurred. ) The missives entered before the emissary entered to crown the king. The king said to him… (The text of the midrash does not include the end of the sentence, but the point is that the king turned back the emissary and informed him that he would not be seen due to the disloyal conduct of the residents of his province. ) “Your people…have acted corruptly” – were they Moses’s people? Rather, that is what the verse said: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me; plunder upon them, as they rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me” (Hosea 7:13). They were separating themselves from Me, as it is stated: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me.” Is there a person who exchanges a good item for a bad item? A person before whom they place gems and coal, would he forsake the gems and take the coal? But they forsake the living of the world (The true, living God, who gives life to the entire world. ) and opt for the dead, as it is stated: “They have eyes, but do not see” (Psalms 115:5). (In worshipping the golden calf, the people chose an inanimate object over God. ) “Plunder upon them” – calamity is destined to befall them. “But they have spoken lies about Me” – what lies did they speak about the Holy One blessed be He? Rabbi Akiva expounded: They said: Was He engaged with us? It was with Himself that He was engaged. He redeemed Himself; He did not redeem us, as it is stated: “Nations and their gods from before Your people, whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt” (II Samuel 7:23). The Rabbis say: “This is your god [that took you out of Egypt]” (Nehemiah 9:18) – it redeemed us. Rabbi Ḥagai ben Elazar says: It is not written here, “this is your god,” but rather, “these are your gods” (Exodus 32:4) – they included Him with them and said: God and the calf redeemed us. They lie about Me; [thus,] “I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me.” I, too, say that they are not My people. That is why it is stated: “For your people…have acted corruptly.”

(Bamidbar 12:10) "And the cloud departed from above the tent": An analogy: A king says to a pedagogue: "Chastise my son — but not until I leave!" For a father is mercifully inclined to his son. Now does this not follow a fortiori, viz.: If the L-rd is mercifully inclined to the righteous in the time of His wrath, how much more so in the time of His (good) will! As it is written (Isaiah 49:8) "In a time of (good) will I (most certainly) will answer you!" (Ibid.) "And, behold, (after the cloud had departed), Miriam was as leprous as snow": We are hereby taught that she was stricken with intense (i.e., highly visible) leprosy, and that she was fair-skinned (for which reason it looked like snow). And thus is it written (Shemot 4:6) "And the L-rd said further to him (Moses): Place now your hand into your bosom … and, behold, his hand was leprous as snow." (Ibid.) "And Aaron 'turned'": He was "turned" from his leprosy. R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: He who says that Aaron was stricken (with leprosy) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him (by not mentioning it explicitly in the verse) and you would reveal it! He who says that Tzelafchad was the mekoshesh ("the wood gatherer" [viz. Bamidbar 15:32]) is destined to pay for it. He who spoke and brought the world into being covered up for him and you would reveal it! And he who says that the ban was placed on Akavya b. Mehalalel (viz. Berachoth 19a) is destined to pay for it. "And Aaron turned to Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous": Scripture hereby apprises us that whenever he looked at her she became leprous. (Ibid. 11) "And Aaron said to Moses: Pray, my lord, do not impute transgression to us in that we have been foolish and have sinned.": He said to him: If we have been willful (in our sin), forgive us, as if we were unwitting. (Ibid. 12) "Let her not be as a dead one": Just as a dead body imparts tumah in a tent, so, a leper imparts tumah by entrance (into a house). Aaron hereby said: Our sister loses on all accounts: I (being her kin) cannot quarantine her nor declare her tamei nor declare her clean. In passing we learn that Aaron expounds that one (a Cohein) does not inspect the plague-spots of his kin. "who leaving his mother's womb": He should have said "who leaving our mother's womb," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. "and half his flesh has been consumed": He should have said "and half our flesh," as in (Bereshit 37:27) "for he is our brother, our flesh," but Scripture here is being euphemistic. (Ibid. 13) "And Moses cried out to the L-rd, saying: 'Lord, I pray You; heal her, I pray You.'": Scripture hereby teaches us proper conduct — that one's requests should be prefaced by two or three words, of imploration. And what is the intent of "saying"? Moses said: Answer me whether You will heal her or not — and the Holy One Blessed be He answered him, viz. (14) "And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: In four places Moses requested (to be answered by the Holy One Blessed be He), and he was answered. Similarly, (Shemot 6:12) "And Moses spoke before the L-rd, to say: "The children of Israel would not listen to me, etc." What is the intent of "to say"? Moses asked the L-rd to answer him whether or not he would redeem them. And He did answer him (Ibid. 7:4) "And I will take out My hosts. My people, Israel, from the land of Egypt." Similarly, (Bamidbar 27:15) "And Moses spoke to the L-rd to say: (16) Let the L-rd, the G-d of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation." What is the intent of "to say"? Moses said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not You will appoint leaders (for them). And He did answer him, (Ibid. 18) "Take for yourself Joshua the son of Nun." Similarly, (Devarim 3:23) "And I implored the L-rd at that time to say." What is the intent of "to say"? He said to Him: Answer me as to whether or not I will enter the land. And He did answer him, (Ibid. 26) "It is enough for you, etc." Here, too, let "to say" not be written. But, (the intent is that) he asked Him to answer whether or not He would heal her, and He answered "Now if her father had spat in her face, etc." (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You": Why did Moses not prolong his prayer? So that Israel not say "His sister is in distress and he stretches out his prayer." Variantly: It is not that Moses prays and the L-rd hears his prayer, but (in the order of) (Iyyov 22:28) "You (the tzaddik) will decree, and it will be fulfilled for you," (Isaiah 58:9) "Then, when you (the tzaddik) call, the L-rd will answer." R. Eliezer was asked by his disciples: How long shall a man be in his prayer? He answered: Not longer than Moses, of whom it is written (Devarim 9:18) "And I fell down before the L-rd (in prayer) as at first, forty days and forty nights." And how short should he be in prayer? He answered: Not shorter than Moses, of whom it is written "G-d, I pray You; heal her, I pray You." There is a time to be short and a time to be long.

וזאת ליהודה, “the following is the blessing for Yehudah, as distinct from praise for its founding father. Its founding father had also caused his father grief due to Joseph’s having been sold at the time was due to his suggestion. (Genesis 37,27) Moses was not willing to mention the name of the tribe of Shimon as Moses held him responsible in his heart for being the one who had first suggested that Joseph be killed. (Compare Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 42,24)

כל המצוה, “All the instruction, etc.” our author understands the word כל in our verse not so much as “all,” i.e. each and every, but as “the whole commandment.” Once you have begun to fulfill a commandment you must complete what you have undertaken. This rule has been spelled out specifically in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, chapter 1, halachah 8. The text is: when someone has commenced to perform a commandment he is told to complete it. If someone has commenced to perform a commandment and it is completed by someone else, the last person gets the credit for having performed it. The source of this ruling is traced to Moses who had commenced the commandment of transferring Joseph’s remains to the land of Israel, (Exodus 13,19) but who could not complete it as he never crossed the Jordan. The credit for burying his remains in the land of Israel is therefore given to the Jewish people, as we know from Joshua 24,32: “and the Children of Israel buried Joseph’s remains which they had brought with them from Egypt, and they were interred in the city of Sh’chem on a plot of land which his father Yaakov had acquired for the price of 1000 kessito as spelled out in Genesis 37,27. This plot became an ancestral heritage to the tribe of Joseph.” (Compare Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sotah) folio 13. Rabbi Sh’muel bar Nachmani is quoted in the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13, as saying that if someone commences to fulfill a commandment but fails to complete it (not by circumstances beyond his control), he will wind up burying his wife and his children. He adds that we know this from Yehudah (Yaakov’s son) compare Genesis 37,26, who said: “what profit is there in killing our brother Joseph.” Yehudah, of course buried both his wife and two of his sons, as we read in Genesis 38, 7-12. Some scholars add that this was why the brothers demoted him as we know from the beginning of that chapter. Instead of saving Joseph, the brothers sat down to eat their meal, and in the interval Joseph was taken out of the pit by Ishmaelites and sold as a slave. Yehudah said that they could not pronounce benedictions of G–d while planning to commit murder of their brother. They therefore interrupted, and sold Joseph, before they sat down again to eat. Yehudah is perceived as having begun to save Joseph from death but not having brought him back safely to his father. The Torah had testified that the brothers listened to him, so that it could be assumed that they would also have agreed to bring him back to his father. At any rate, this is the meaning of Moses referring to כל מצוה, “the whole commandment.”

This is the second stage of repentance. They confess. In fact, they do more; they admit collective responsibility. This is important. When the brothers sold Joseph into slavery it was Judah who proposed the crime (Gen. 37:26–27) but they were all (except Reuben) complicit in it.

From thine own flesh. From thy relative. Comp. He is our brother and our flesh (Gen. 37:27)

If one thing seems clear throughout the last third of Genesis, it is that Joseph will emerge as the archetypal leader. He is the central character of the story, and his dreams and the shifting circumstances of his fate all point in that direction. Least likely as a candidate for leadership is Judah, the man who proposed selling Joseph as a slave (Gen. 37:26–27), whom we next see separated from his brothers, living among the Canaanites, intermarried with them, losing two of his sons because of sin, and having sexual relations with a woman he takes to be a prostitute. The chapter in which this is described begins with the phrase, “At that time Judah went down from among his brothers” (38:1). The commentators take this to mean moral decline.

Judah is the first person in the Torah to achieve perfect repentance (teshuva gemura), defined by the sages as one who finds himself in a situation to repeat an earlier sin but who does not do so because he is now a changed person. (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Teshuva 2:1.) Many years before, Judah was responsible for Joseph being sold as a slave: “Judah said to his brothers, ‘What will we gain if we kill our brother and cover up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites and not lay our hands on him; after all, he is our brother, our own flesh and blood.’ His brothers agreed” (Gen. 37:26–27). Now, faced with the prospect of leaving Benjamin as a slave, he says, “Let me stay as a slave and let my brother go free” (44:33). That is perfect repentance, and it is what allows Joseph to reveal his identity and forgive his brothers.

The macabre image conveys Aaron’s understanding of the intimate connection between Miriam and Moses. All three siblings emerged from the same womb—and siblings are one flesh. (“He is our brother, our flesh,” Judah says of Joseph (Gen. 37:27).) But Aaron speaks of his (Moses’) mother’s womb, and of his flesh alone. Moses has the power to intercede for his sister, precisely because of the primal connection between them. They emerged from their mother’s womb in a unique sense: for Miriam, by reuniting her parents, had brought that womb back into the world of possibilities.

AND IF ‘YI’ODENAH’ (HE ESPOUSE HER) UNTO HIS SON, HE SHALL DEAL WITH HER AFTER THE MANNER OF DAUGHTERS. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, it is possible that G-d is saying that if the buyer yi’odenah for his son, which means that he espoused her to him — for the term yi’ud is an expression of appointing, such as: he tarried longer than the set time which ‘y’ado’ (he had appointed him) (II Samuel 20:5.) — then he shall do unto her after the manner that a man does for his own daughters — he is to give her of his own according to the dowry of virgins. (Further, 22:6.) He thus commanded this as He did in the law of outfitting the emancipated servant, (Deuteronomy 15:13-14.) and it is all an expression of His goodness, magnified be He! And in accordance with the interpretation of our Rabbis, which is the truth, the meaning of the verse is: after the manner of daughters whom parents marry off, so shall the son [of the master] deal with her. And then He explains [what is “the manner of daughters”] that if he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights — that is, of this one [the former maidservant] — he shall not diminish. (Verse 10.) It is obvious that if he did not marry another woman he must not diminish her rights, but Scripture speaks of that which is usual. (I.e., if he does marry another woman he is more likely to diminish the rights of this one; hence Scripture speaks of the case ‘if’ he take him another wife. But this is by no means to be understood that it was “the usual” thing to take another wife.) Now Rashi explained: “sh’eirah (Verse 10.) means food; k’suthah is, as the literal sense of the word, raiment; onatha is the marital duty.” And so did Onkelos render sh’eirah: zivanah (food). But in the Gemara (Kethuboth 47b. — For the meaning of the term Gemara see in Seder Bo, Note 204.) the Rabbis said with reference to the Sage who held this opinion [that sh’eirah means food]: “And this Tanna (See in Seder Yithro, Note 451.) holds that the alimentation of one’s wife is a law of the Torah. For we have been taught: sh’eirah — this means her food, and so it says, He caused ‘sh’eir’ (flesh) to rain upon them as the dust (Psalms 78:27.) etc.” And from the subject under discussion in that Gemara it is understood that this is the opinion of a single Sage, whilst the accepted law is that the alimentation of one’s wife is a Rabbinical enactment. And even according to the plain meaning of Scripture, why should it mention food under the term sh’eir which means “flesh;” it should rather have mentioned lachmah (her bread), for man lives by bread (See Deuteronomy 8:3.) and his obligation towards her is [mainly] in that sustenance. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra thought to correct this, and so he explained sh’eirah as meaning food which builds up her sh’eir, namely her flesh. But there is no sense in Scripture saying that the “husband diminish not her flesh!” Therefore I say that the meaning of sh’eir everywhere is flesh close and near to one’s own, the root thereof being derived from the expression sh’eir b’saro, (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) that is his close flesh outside that of the flesh of his own body. Thus relatives are called sh’eir: to any sh’eir b’saro’ (that is near of kin to him); (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) they are ‘sha’arah’ (near kinswomen), (Ibid., Verse 17.) this being associated with the expressions: surely thou art my bone and my flesh; (Genesis 29:14.) of whom the flesh is half consumed. (Numbers 12:12. “The flesh” here refers to Miriam — Aaron’s and Moses’ sister.) Similarly, And I will cut off from Babylon a name, ‘ush’ar’ offshoot and offspring, (Isaiah 14:22.) means a child related to him. Likewise, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed, (Proverbs 5:11.) which means “yourself and your children” who are the flesh closest to you. Thus meat is called sh’eir — He caused ‘sh’eir’ to rain upon them as the dust (Psalms 78:27.) — because meat when eaten is absorbed by the eater and becomes part of his flesh. It is possible that this is the meaning of the expression, when thy flesh ‘ush’eirecha’ are consumed, (Proverbs 5:11.) meaning: when the original flesh of your body, and the nutriment of flesh which came from the food, will be consumed and will no longer be part of your flesh. Thus a woman in relation to her husband is called sh’eir — just as the Rabbis interpreted: (Yebamoth 22b.) “except for ‘lish’eiro,’ (Leviticus 21:2.) sh’eir means his wife;” — the usage of the term being derived from the idea that G-d stated, and he shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:24.) Thus sh’eira here means “the nearness of her flesh;” k’suthah is “the cover of her bed,” just as it is said, for that is his only ‘k’suthoh’ (covering)… wherein shall he sleep? (Further, 22:26.) and onathah is “her time,” that he come to her at times of love. And even if we say as some commentators do, that the meaning of sh’eir is like “his flesh,” and the expression, to any ‘sh’eir’ b’saro’ (Leviticus 18:6. Generally translated: “that is near of kin to him.” According to Ramban the literal meaning would be: “the flesh close and near to his flesh.”) is like “to any flesh of his flesh,” just as it says, for he is our brother, our flesh (Genesis 37:27.) — in that case we would still explain ‘sh’eirah'… he shall not diminish as meaning that he shall not diminish from her her flesh; that is, the flesh due to her, namely, the flesh of her husband who with her is one flesh. Thus the meaning of the verse is, that G-d says that if the master takes another wife, he shall not diminish from this one the nearness of her flesh, the cover of her bed, and her time of love, for such is the manner of daughters. And the intention is that the other woman should not be sitting upon a stately bed, (Ezekiel 23:41.) and there they shall be one flesh, (Genesis 2:24.) whilst this one is to him merely like a concubine, with whom he lives only by chance, and upon the ground, just like one comes to a harlot. It is for this reason that Scripture has forbidden him to act in this way. And so did the Sages say: (Kethuboth 48a.) “sh’eirah means the nearness of flesh, that he should not behave to her as is the custom among the Persians, who perform their marital rights in their clothes.” This is a correct interpretation, for such is the style of Scripture always to mention sexual intercourse in clean and brief language. Therefore it mentions these duties by means of allusion: sh’eirah k’sutha v’onatha, referring to the three things which are usual when a man comes together with his wife. Thus the verse is properly explained in accordance with the accepted law, whilst alimentation of one’s wife and provision of her raiment are duties put upon the husband by ordinance of the Rabbis.

AND THERE WENT A MAN OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI. Our Rabbis have said (Sotah 12a.) that he went after the advice of his daughter. (Amram and Jochebed, Moses’ parents, had been married previously. The children of that union were Miriam and Aaron. “When Pharaoh decreed that the male children of the Hebrews be killed, Amram separated from his wife, and his example was followed by all of the Israelites. Miriam then told her father that his decree is worse than that of the king. ‘Pharaoh decreed only against the male children, while you include the girls as well. It is doubtful if the decree of wicked Pharaoh will persist, while you are a righteous man and your enactment will surely be upheld by G-d.’ Upon recognizing the justice of her plea, Amram remarried his wife, and the men who had previously followed his example also remarried” (Sotah 12 b). It is this episode which the verse suggests by saying, And there went a man, i.e., “went” after the advice of his daughter and remarried his divorced wife. See also further on in the text for a reference to a prophecy Miriam made at that time.) Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the Israelites dwelled in many cities, and this woman Jochebed lived in another city. [This would explain the term “went” in the above verse, i.e., he went to another city for his wife.] But what need is there for Scripture to mention this? In my opinion Scripture uses the term “went” because this man paid no heed to Pharaoh’s decree and took to himself a woman to beget children. Such is Scripture’s way of speaking of anyone who prompts himself to do something new. Thus: And Reuben went and lay with Bilhah; (Genesis 35:22.) So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; (Hosea 1:3. Since she was a harlot, it required self-prompting on his part to perform the novel act of marrying her.) Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites; (Genesis 37:27.) Come, and let us smite him with the tongue; (Jeremiah 18:18.) Come now, and let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18.) Similarly this man Amram alerted himself and married a daughter of Levi. The reason Scripture does not mention the name of the man nor the name of the woman he married is to avoid tracing their genealogy and mentioning who their fathers and their fathers’ fathers were up to Levi. At this point, Scripture desires to shorten the subject until the birth of the redeemer takes place, and after that, in the second seder, (I.e., in Seder Va’eira. (A seder is the weekly portion of the Torah read in the synagogue at the Sabbath morning services.) Specifically, Moses’ genealogy is found in Seder Va’eira, Chapter 6, Verses 16-20.) He traced the genealogy even of other tribes (Reuben and Simeon. (Ibid., Verses 14-15).) on account of Moses. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture, i.e., that this was a first marriage [and not a remarriage as stated above], there is no significance in its being mentioned earlier or later in the chapter. This marriage took place before Pharaoh’s decree [that all male Hebrew children be killed], and she gave birth to Miriam and Aaron. After that, Pharaoh decreed, Every son that is born, ye shall cast into the river, (Above, 1:22.) and then she gave birth to this goodly son Moses. Scripture did not mention the birth of Miriam and Aaron inasmuch as there was nothing new about them. However, in the opinion of our Rabbis, (Sotah 12a.) this was a remarriage, since Amram separated from his wife in consequence of Pharaoh’s decree and then took her back on account of his daughter’s prophecy. (Miriam prophesied, “My mother is destined to bear a son who will deliver Israel” (Sotah 13 a).) He made her a wedding and placed her in the litter, while Miriam and Aaron danced about them in their joy (So clearly stated in Sotah 12a.) because through this marriage, Israel would be redeemed [from Egypt]. Even though Aaron was young (He could have been no more than two years old since he was but three years older than Moses, and Moses was born after the second marriage.) [at that time], G-d put gladness in his heart for this occasion, or possibly his sister Miriam taught him.

AND THEY SHALL BE ONE FLESH. The child is created by both parents, and there in the child, their flesh is united into one. Thus the words of Rashi. But there is no point to this since in beast and cattle too, their flesh is united into one in their offspring. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that in cattle and beast the males have no attachment to their females. Rather, the male mates with any female he finds, and then they go their separate ways. It is for this reason that Scripture states that because the female of man was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, he therefore cleaves to her and she nestles in his bosom as his own flesh, and he desires to be with her always. And just as it was with Adam, so was his nature transmitted to his offspring, that the males among them should cleave to their women, leaving their fathers and their mothers, and considering their wives as if they are one flesh with them. A similar sense is found in the verses: For he is our brother, our flesh; (Genesis 37:27.) to any that is near of his flesh. (Leviticus 18:6.) Those who are close members of the family are called sh’eir basar (near of flesh). Thus man will leave “the flesh” of his father and his mother and their kin and will see that his wife is nearer to him than they.

אשר בצאתו מרחם אמו It ought to have stated “אמנו” “of our mother’s womb”, only that Scripture modified the expression. Similarly חצי בשרו — it ought to have said חצי בשרנו “the half of our flesh is consumed”, only that Scripture modified the expression (Scripture uses these expressions with the suffix of the third person singular instead of the first person plural, because it wishes to avoid an ominous expression referring to Aaron and Moses). — The meaning is: Since she came forth from the womb of our own mother she in her present state is to us as though the half of our flesh were consumed. It is the same idea as is expressed in the words, (Genesis 37:27) “for he is our brother, our own flesh” (Sifrei Bamidbar 105). — And even according to what the text literally implies (without assuming any modification) it appears to have that meaning: "It is not right for a brother to allow his sister to remain as a dead person".

(Bereshit 37:25–27)

Seeing him approach from the distance – as Jacob once saw Rachel – they planned to kill him. The next move was in some ways more chilling – a cynical and dehumanizing reduction of brotherhood to commerce. (Batnadiv HaKarmi-Weinberg’s website, bibliodraw.blogspot.com, offers a sustained exploration of the centrality of money to the Joseph story.) They did not kill Joseph, but sold him for personal gain: “Judah said to his brothers: ‘What do we profit by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Let us sell him instead’” (Genesis 37:26–27).

Judah said to his brothers: “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let us not do away with him ourselves. After all, he is our brother, our own flesh.” Genesis 37:26–27

“His brothers agreed” [37:27]. The brothers listened to Judah and wanted to sell him as a slave. They said: the children of Abraham are supposed to be in exile in Egypt. Perhaps Joseph will be in exile for all of us. He is also a descendant of Abraham. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:27.)

Let her not be like a stillbirth which emerges from its mother’s womb with half its flesh eaten away!”

Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites [Arabs], and let our hands not be upon him; for he is our brother, our own flesh. His brothers listened [to him.] [obeyed him].

Come, let us sell him to the Arabians, and our hands shall not be upon him to kill him; for our brother is our own flesh. And his brethren agreed.

[Then] he (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. his students), “I will ask [you another question].” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” They said to him, “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” It happened [once] with four elders, that they were sitting in the gatehouse of Rebbi Yehoshua. [They were] Elazar Ben Matya, Chaninah Ben Chachinai, Shimon Ben Azzai, and Shimon Hateimani. And they were involved [in discussing] what Rebbi Tarfon taught to them, “Why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship [of Israel]?” “Because [Yehudah] admitted [that he impregnated] Tamar.” They have added [another source to that explanation] on their own. “[It says in the book of Iyov], ‘… that which the wise related from their fathers and did not withhold. To them alone the earth was given…’ (Job 15:18-19)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said to them (i.e. to the four elders), “Do they give reward for a transgression? But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because he (i.e. Yehudah) saved his brother (i.e. Yosef) from death, as it is said, ‘Yehudah said to his brothers, “What benefit [will we have] if we kill our brother?”’ (Genesis 37:26) and it is written, ‘Let us go and sell him to the Ishmaelites…’ (Genesis 37:27)”8 He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “It is enough that [the act of] saving [him] should [serve] as forgiveness for the [act of] selling [him to the Ishmaelites]. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” [The four elders said back to Rebbi Tarfon,] “Because of [Yehudah’s] humility, as it is said, ‘And now your servant (i.e. Yehudah) will become a slave to my master (i.e. Yosef) instead of the boy (i.e. Binyamin).’ (Genesis 44:33) Also [the only reason that] Shaul merited the kingship [of Israel] was due to [his] humility, as it is said, ‘… may be my father will turn his attention away from the donkeys and will start to worry about us.’ (I Samuel 9:5) [Since Shaul said “us” and not “me”] he considered his servant as [important as] himself, but Shmuel did not do so, but rather [he said], ‘Your father stopped worrying about the donkeys and is worried about you, saying “What will happen to my son?”’ (I Samuel 10:2) And when he (i.e. Shaul) runs away from [accepting his newly appointed role of] leadership what does it say? ‘And they have asked God, “Is the man even here?” and God said, “Here he is hiding by the vessels.”’ (I Samuel 10:22)” He (i.e. Rebbi Tarfon) said [back] to them (i.e. the four elders), “Is not he (i.e. Yehudah) a cosigner? And in the end [it is the responsibility] of a cosigner to fulfill his pledge. But rather what is [the real] reason why did [the tribe of] Yehudah merit the kingship of Israel?” They said to him, “Teach us our master.” He said to them, “[The reason the tribe of Yehudah merited the kingship of Israel is] because they sanctified God’s name on the sea. When [all of] the tribes came and stood by the sea, this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first]’ and this one said, ‘I will go down [into the water first].’ The tribe of Yehudah jumped up and went in first and sanctified God’s name [by doing so]. And regarding that moment it says [in Tehillim], ‘Save me God, because the water is up to my soul.’ (Psalms 69:2) And it also says, ‘When Yisrael was going out of Egypt, the children of Yakov from the nation of a foreign tongue, Yehudah was His sanctifier…’ (Psalms 114:1-2) Since Yehudah sanctified God’s name on the sea, therefore ‘…Yisrael his subjects.’ (ibid.) ”

And Midianite men passed There are commentaries that the Midianites heard him screaming in the pit, and brought him up, and kidnapped him, and sold him to Yishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, and made a great profit from this since they hadn't spent anything on him. The Yishmaelites then brought him down to Egypt, and what it says at the end of the parsha, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt..." (Bereishit 37:36), is that they sold him in order to bring him down to Egypt, and this is not just lies! For behild, it's written there "to Potifar", and further, that in that place it's difficult why he didn't reveal himself. And also, there is one who says Madanim [מדנים] and Midaynim [מדיינים], [called this] for the name of the cargo that they carry, such as in Iyov 38:31 "Can you bind the cords [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת] of the Pleiades?", or I Samuel 15:32 "And Agag came to him in chains [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת]". And sometimes the ayin is omitted, for it's usual to omit the letters alef, chet, hey and ayin. For example, "and laid in wait [vayarev, וַיָּרֶב] in a valley" (I Samuel 15:5), which is like vaye'arev ויארב. And so too is explained "sitters on couches [midin, מִדִּין]" (Shoftim 5:10), that it's like on the cargo which is bound. And all of this isn't worth anything to me, but it was one people, as I have explained, just as they call us sometimes Yehudim and sometimes Yisra'elim and sometimes Yeshurun. And the truth is that his brothers sold him, as he said to them "that have sold me here" (Bereishit 45:4), and [the merchants?] caused them to swear, as I have explained, and made from them great profit, like a man who sells his field because of its poor quality, for they would give of their own that someone would distance it from them, for in they end they hated him with a hatred.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, “in the meantime Midianite merchants had passed by the pit that Joseph had been thrown into and they heard his cries.

וימשכו, “they pulled him out;” the Midianites pulled him out of the pit, and proceeded to sell him to the Yishmaelites; the Yishmaelites in turned him over to the Midianites for safekeeping, as they had no immediate use for him. He was then sold to Poptiphar by the Yishmaelites and Midianites jointly. When you understand what happened in this way, all the three verses that describe what happened to Joseph after he was thrown into the pit makes perfect sense. The three verses read as follows: verse 36: The Midianites had sold him to Egypt, specifically to Potiphar.” Chapter 39,1: Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites;” chapter 45,4: Joseph speaking: “whom you had sold (me) to Egypt.” Joseph was not concerned with the details but with the cause of his being in Egypt. He accuses the brothers of having been the cause, not the actual sellers.

מן הבור, “from the pit;” his brothers had no knowledge at all of what had happened to Joseph after they had thrown him into the pit. When Reuven came back to the pit and there was no trace of Joseph, all of them thought that some wild animal must have devoured him. They did not lie to their father. If the brothers themselves had sold him to anyone or any country, they would have made extensive efforts during the 22 years until they travelled to Egypt to find out what had happened to him since. Not only that, if they had had any reason to believe that he might still have been alive, they would not have failed to recognise him when they stood face to face with him. He could not have completely fooled them unless they had long ago become convinced that he was dead. At least they would have recognised him when he blessed Binyamin (43,29) or when he gave Binyamin gifts that were five time larger than the gifts he gave to them. (43,34) Also, the fact that he had seated them at the table in strict accordance with the order of their birth, would have convinced them that he must be their long lost brother. I am convinced that this is the correct sequence of what happened. An alternate interpretation of the sequence of events after Joseph was thrown into the pit: while the brothers were still debating among themselves if to sell Joseph to the approaching Yishmaelites, the Midianites had come from a different direction and seen Joseph in the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites as soon as possible. In order not to be shamed as having left him in the pit while he was crying, they took him out and made him look presentable before handing him over to the Yishmaelites. Following this, the Yishmaelites sold Joseph to the Midianites, who in turn sold him to Potiphar. According to this scenario, Joseph was actually sold no fewer than four times. This would tally with what is written in 39,1 according to which Potiphar bought Joseph from the Yishmaelites. To sum up: the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites; this sale has not been recorded in the Torah as it remained in effect only for an hour or so. The Midianites then sold him to the Yishmaelites; this sale was also not recorded in the Torah seeing that the Yishmaelites resold Joseph as soon as possible and secretly, not at public auction as they were afraid that the Midianites wished to cancel the sale and sell him to Potiphar instead, getting a much better price. When Potiphar saw Joseph in the possession of the Midianites and realised how handsome a slave this would be, he could not understand why a white person would sell a fellow white skinned person, they usually only sold negroes, although the reverse would have made sense to him. He therefore reasoned that Joseph could not have been born as a slave. Consequently, he demanded an ironclad guarantee that the Midinanites had not kidnapped him. The guarantee that the Midianites furnished was that they brought the Yishmaelites from whom they had purchased Joseph to confirm this for Potiphar. This is why the Torah writes that Potiphar purchased Joseph from the Yishmaelites, who had confirmed that they had sold him legitimately.

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” The price sounds extremely cheap, seeing that Joseph was such a handsome young man. We would have to understand this as being due to Joseph’s face reflecting horrific experiences he had undergone recently and from which he did not yet recover. The brothers shared the twenty silver pieces, reportedly each buying himself a pair of new shoes (Amos 2,6) A different interpretation of why the Torah mentions the price Joseph was sold for: In Leviticus 27,5, the Torah lists the monetary value of a person who donates the value of such a person to the Temple treasury. The value depends on age and sex. According to what is written there, males between the age of five and twenty are worth 20 shekel; Joseph was 17 years at the time. According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,18, G-d decreed that because the brothers sold Joseph for 5 sela’im=20 dinarim, they will have to pay a priest 5 selaim to redeem a first born son.

וימשכו ויעלו, “they pulled and raised;” first they struck a deal to sell him for twenty pieces of silver. Then in order to deliver him to the purchaser they had to haul him out of the pit. While Joseph had been in the pit, wondering how he would ever escape, he had lost his good looks and was not presentable to people who wished to buy a young and able bodied slave. As soon as he was hauled out of the pit he regained his former looks. The sellers were now not prepared to sell him for so little money and they were about to throw him back into the pit. In order to prevent this, the Ishmaelites added shoes of their own free will in order to satisfy the Midianite merchants. This is what the prophet Amos referred to (Amos 2,6) when he said: על מכרם בכסף צדיק ואביון בעבור נעלים, “because they have sold for silver those whose cause was just and the needy for a pair of sandals.” As soon as the Ishmaelites offered more than originally, the Midianites raised Joseph from the pit again.

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעלים, “they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. According to Rashi, the subject here are the brothers, who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites, whereupon the latter sold him to the Midianites who in turn sold him to the Egyptians. If so, we must understand the whole paragraph as follows: They (the brothers who had sat down to eat but had not eaten yet) raised their eyes (verse 25) and they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites approaching, (from the east travelling south) while at the same time Midianite merchants arrived at the pit from a different direction who (eventually) hauled Joseph out of the pit. (verse 28) [Remember the brothers had sat down for lunch some distance from the pit so that they would not hear Joseph’s cries. Ed.] These Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver. The reason why the Torah mentions this at this stage is that we should not wonder when the Torah in verse 36 reports that the Medanim had sold Joseph already some time previously to the Egyptians. The individual Egyptian who purchased Joseph was Potiphar. Most of this had taken place while the brothers had still argued among themselves if to sell him to the Ishmaelites. They had been pre-empted in the meantime by the Midianites. The Midianites in the meantime had become witnesses to the discussions among Joseph’s brothers and had bought Joseph subsequently from the Ishmaelites. They were certain that Joseph had been hauled up from the pit in order that he could be sold to them. There were two separate groups of people, some called Medanim, and the others Midianim. The Ishmaelites who were traveling in the direction of Egypt, were the ones who sold Joseph to Potiphar once they had arrived in Egypt. If you were to say why does the Torah write in verse 36 the Medanim had sold him to Egypt, so that eventually he was sold to Potiphar, etc.? We would have expected the subject in that verse to have been the Midianites! Rash’bam in his commentary on the Chumash claims that the three people mentioned in this story, i.e. the Ishmaelites, Midianites, and Medonites, were all members of the same people though not of the same tribe. Their founder fathers were all brothers from the same mother and father Avraham-Keturah (Hagar), as we know (assuming that Keturah was identical with Hagar) (Compare Genesis 25,2) The query mentioned above was already raised by Rashi, (verse 3) we quote him (the Midrash which he quotes) literally: the word פסים in the garment described as כתונת פסים, contains a hint of future problems, being sold four times, Joseph would endure. The letter פ refers to Potiphar to whom he had been sold. The letter ס refers to the סוחרים, the merchants (verse 28) the letter י to the Ishmaelites, and the letter ם to the Medonites. The problem with the Midrash is that only three sales have been reported in the Torah. In view of this difficulty I suggest the following: concerning the line (verse 25) ‘they raised their eyes and here there was approaching a caravan of Ishmaelites, etc.;” this happened while the brothers were discussing among themselves how to proceed from there. They hit on the idea of selling Joseph to the members of that caravan. Before the caravan of |shmaelites had even reached them, another group of Midianite merchants had passed the pit from the opposite direction and hearing his cries, sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites before even having raised him from the pit, for the measly amount of 20 pieces of silver. They then hauled Joseph from the pit alive. The Ishmaelites sold him to the Medonites, and these in turn sold him to Potiphar. So we do have four separate sales. When the Torah wrote in Genesis 39,1 that Potiphar acquired him from the Ishmaelites, this is quite correct as when Potiphar set eyes on him he looked very handsome, and he reasoned that “negroes do not sell whites, whereas whites sell negroes;” in other words, he considered it unlikely that the Medonites had come by Joseph legally, and he wanted reassurance that he did not buy someone who had been kidnapped. The |shmaelites who had sold him to the Medonites gave Potiphar a guarantee that everything was completely legal. (B’reshit Rabbah 86,3)

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” If you were to ask how it is possible that a young man as physically fit and handsome could have been sold for so little, [according to the Torah the going price for people such as Joseph was a minimum of 50 shekel, Ed] perhaps the Torah meant that each brother received 20 pieces of silver as his share of the sale. This question had been raised in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38. One of the answers given there is that he had become so upset as a result of his experiences that he had not only lost his good looks but had also become physically completely weakened; [my edition of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer only quotes the verse from Amos 2,6, from which he derives that each brother bought himself a pair of sandals for the 2 pieces of silver he had received from that sale. Ed.]

That were going through the desert with that caravan of Ishmaelites and the camels, because it is impossible to go through the desert without a large caravan, and they (the Midianites) were going on foot. And what it mentions was not "seen from a distance" except the tall camels. And the Midianites that went on foot turned from the road for the sound of Yosef, or because their hearts pushed them to look into that pit.

The Midianites. And the brothers who saw it rejoiced in this, because their desire was done without their getting involved. And if Yehuda had not spoken so, they would not have set on pulling him out and selling him, but they would have left him in the pit until he died. But when it had been decided by them to do so, it was a delight to them that it was done by the Midianites. And this is what it says in Bereishis Rabbah 84 that Yosef was stolen twice. His brothers stole him from their father, and the Midianites from the brothers. And in any case, Yosef said when he made himself known to his brothers "because you sold me here". Because they caused the matter, and they knew the action of the Midianites and it wasn't stopped by them. This is as if they did it. And so Rashbam interprets....

The Ishmaelites.

AND THERE PASSED BY. When the Ishmaelite merchantmen passed by them. (The vav of va-ya’avru (and there passed by) is to be rendered when rather than and. The meaning of the verse is: when the Midianite (Ishmaelite) merchantmen passed by, they drew and lifted Joseph out of the pit (Krinsky). I.E.’s point is that the Midianites in our verse refers to the caravan of Ishmaelites of verse 25. Thus va-ya’avru does not introduce new material. Hence I.E.’s paraphrase: when, etc. (Filwarg).) Scripture refers to the Ishmaelites as Midianites because the Midianites are called Ishmaelites. The Book of Judges similarly says concerning the kings of Midian, because they were Ishmaelites (Jud. 8:24).

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, Midianites were passing, etc. Why did the Torah mention the passing by of Midianites when the sale was conducted with the Ishmaelites as is clearly stated at the end of this verse? Verse 25 also makes it clear that Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites.

Furthermore, we read in verse 36 that the Midianites sold Joseph in Egypt to Potiphar, etc. This appears to prove that the brothers had sold Joseph to the Midianites, something which contradicts what we have been told previously. To confuse the issue still further, we are told in 39,1 that Joseph was brought down to Egypt where Potiphar purchased him from the Ishmaelites. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,22 account for all this by saying that Joseph was sold several times over. This does not seem to solve all the difficulties in the text, however.

The correct interpretation is that the Torah first mentions the appearance of a caravan of Ishmaelites (verse 25) and Yehudah's suggestion that they should sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. When the brothers became aware that the Ishmaelites in that caravan dealt only in spices, etc., and that they would not consider slave trading, G'd arranged for מדנים סוחרים, Midianite merchants to pass by. The Torah adds the word "merchants" to tell us that the brothers recognised that these men were less discriminating in the kind of merchandise they dealt in. The brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites using the Midianites as middlemen. The Ishmaelites would have refused to buy a human being (who presumably had been a free man) from the brothers directly. Inasmuch as the deal involved both the Midianites and the Ishmaelites, the Midianites received part of the profit. The Ishmaelites who had financed the sale, paid out the cash at that time.

The Torah was able to say "the Midianites had sold him to Egypt (37,36)" since they received part of the profit of the transaction. Inasmuch as they and not the Ishmaelites knew Joseph's true value as a slave, they conducted the sale to Potiphar.Meanwhile Joseph's body, i.e. his person remained in the care of the Ishmaelites so that when Potiphar acquired him he did so from the hands of the Ishmaelites (39,1). The Torah emphasises מיד הישמעלים, to make certain that we understand that Joseph was in the physical possession of the Ishmaelites who handed him over to Potiphar. All the various verses make perfect sense when looked at in this vein. Perhaps the author of the Midrash mentioned מכירות הרבה, many sales, because the different stages involved in Joseph's sale appeared to him as if he was being sold many times over.

וימכרו את יוסף. They sold Joseph. It is possible that after the brothers had humiliated Joseph by stripping him naked and tossing him into the pit that their anger abated partially and they were willing to accept Yehudah's suggestion. They may have thought that their declared objective to frustrate realisation of Joseph's dreams would be achieved if he were to be sold into slavery. Once he had become a slave there were no known ways in which Joseph could rise to a higher status, much less to that of king. This is what Psalms 105,17 had in mind when the Psalmist stated: כי לעבד נמכר יוסף, "Joseph had been sold into slavery."

ויעברו אנשים מדינים סוחרים, וימשכו, “Midianite men, merchants, passed by and pulled Joseph (out of the pit).” According to the plain meaning of the text the passing Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him, not the brothers. According to this interpretation, Joseph saying to the brothers in Genesis 45,4 “I am Joseph whom you have sold to Egypt,” has to refer to the fact that the brothers dumped him in the pit as a result of which he was eventually sold to Egypt. This would be supported by the fact that at that time he said מצרימה, i.e. in the direction of Egypt, as opposed to למצרים, which would have meant: “to Egypt.” He referred to a process which eventually brought him to Egypt after he had been traded from master to master. In that event the sin attributed to the brothers by the Romans (who punished Jewish scholars over 1200 years later) would have been an indirect sin at best. They were punished for being the cause which triggered Joseph’s eventually winding up in Egypt as a slave. The Romans felt that leading citizens of the Jewish people should pay for this indirect sale of Joseph by the brothers. They considered it murder seeing that if the Ishmaelites or Midianites had not come along Joseph would have died in that pit. The principle of prominent people being considered guilty of murder even if it was not by laying an actual hand of the victim is reflected in the Bible by the case of David who ordered his commander-in-chief Yoav to place Bat Sheva’s husband Uriah in such an exposed position at the front against the Bney Ammon that he was almost certain to be killed. He instructed Yoav to ensure that Uriah would be killed by withdrawing the support of his comrades-in-arms from Uriah. As a result, Uriah was killed. by the Ammonites, and the Bible (the prophet Natan in Samuel II 12,9) accused David outright of having murdered Uriah though he had not laid a hand on him. The only difference between murdering someone with one’s own hands and between contriving his certain death in another fashion is the culpability before a human tribunal. The sin vis-a-vis G’d is the same (compare Kidushin 43)

בעשרים כסף, “for twenty pieces of silver.” We have been commanded by the Torah (Numbers 18,16) that the redemption of a firstborn son, an Israelite, (as distinct from a Kohen or a Levite) is to be performed in exchange for 5 selaim. The sela is a coin worth 4 “kesseph,” pieces of silver, such as mentioned in our verse here. This is the reason that Onkelos does not translate “twenty selaim of silver” but leaves the wording of the Torah unchanged and writes: עשרים כסף. One of the underlying reasons for the whole procedure of redeeming the firstborn is the need to atone for that sale of Joseph who was Rachel’s firstborn son and who had been wrongly sold for this amount (compare Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim 2,3).

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned previously, seeing that both Midianites and Medanites are descendants of Keturah. [Keturah is understood to be Hagar who had her name changed after Sarah’s death when Avraham took her as a wife. Seeing that she gave birth to both Medan and to Midian, (25,2) this made both these sons full brothers to her earlier son Ishmael by the same father. Ed.] Even assuming that Keturah and Hagar were not identical, the three were at least sons of Avraham and therefore half brothers. Their respective families had intermarried so that they could be considered as brothers in the real sense of the word. The close relationship between their respective descendants comes to the fore in Judges 8,24 where after Gideon’s campaign against the Midianites they are described as Ishmaelites, the kind of jewelry they wore identifying them as members of that tribe.

וימשכו, Joseph’s brothers pulled him out of the pit prior to the sale to the Ishmaelites. All this occurred when Reuven was not present. Perhaps, in the interval he had returned to his father. [a distance of 120 km, hardly likely, as Reuven would have had to come back another 120 km. to retrieve Joseph who would have died from thirst in the interval if not from other causes. Ed.] It is more likely that Reuven had a flock of his own to look after in that general region.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים, while the brothers had been sitting down to consume their meal, having distanced themselves somewhat from the pit into which they had thrown Joseph in order not to be guilty of “eating while spilling blood,” they were waiting for the Ishmaelites whom they had seen in the distance, to arrive. During this period the Midianites, coming from a different direction had passed there, saw Joseph in the pit, pulled him up, and proceeded to sell him to the Ishmaelites. One may assume that the brothers had no knowledge of this. Even though the Torah appears to attribute the sale of Joseph to the Ishmaelites to the brothers, (based on Joseph accusing them of having sold him to Egypt, 45,4) we would have to say that because of their having been instrumental in bringing about that sale they are considered as if having assisted in that sale. This appears to me the deeper meaning of the plain meaning of the text both here and in chapter 45. The line describing the Midianites passing that way is described as something totally coincidental, having nothing to do with what the brothers had planned to do with Joseph. Even if the Torah says:וימכרו (את) יוסף לישמעאלים, this sounds as if the brothers did the selling. It is also possible that the brothers noting the Midianites suddenly materialising out of nowhere, instructed them to pull Joseph out of the pit after which they themselves sold him to the Ishmaelites.

ויעברו אנשים מדינים AND THERE PASSED BY MIDIANITES — This was another caravan: Scripture indicates that he was sold several times.

וימשכו AND THEY DREW UP — the sons of Jacob drew up את יוסף מן הבור JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites to the Midianites and the Midianites into Egypt (Midrash Tanchuma 1:9:13).

מדינים סוחרים, the owners of the merchandise being transported on the Ishmaelites’ camels.

וימכרו את יוסף לישמעאלים, they completed the deal with the Ishmaelites acting as agents for the Midianites. The brothers did not want to speak to the Midianite merchants. The reason was that they did not want to be recognised by them as they were in the habit of frequenting cities in order to ply their wares. The camel drovers, however, were not in the habit of visiting urban areas. At worst they would just pass through towns without stopping there overnight or longer. The actual purchasers, however, were the Midianite merchants, in accordance with the Torah’s narrative that the Midianites sold Joseph to Egypt (verse 36). The Jewish people experienced something parallel during the period of the second Temple, when Midianites sold a portion of our people into slavery to surrounding nations, a phenomenon which was widespread during the time when the descendants of the Hasmoneans were fighting among themselves about who would be king in Jerusalem. This fratricide is responsible for our exile until this day. It was a historical replay of what happened as a result of the brothers selling Joseph, and the whole family winding up in exile in Egypt only a few years later. Compare what our sages have to say on the subject in Shabbat 10.

And they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit, and they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Most of the world believe that the brothers of Joseph sold him, but the Rashbam writes that this was not so, and the Chizkuni agrees with him. My friend and son of my uncle, my teacher and rabbi R. Shmuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l, delved deeply into the topic of this story, and he tended to the understanding of the Rashbam. He wrote about his opinions to be in a letter (28 Kislev 5589), and these are his words in explanation of this story: When Joseph's brothers saw him in the distance, they plotted to kill him: "And they said... let us go and kill him..." But Reuven heard and saved him immediately, and advised them to cast him into the pit (in order to save him from their hand). They followed his advice and cast him into the pit. Afterwards, they returned to eat bread, and they distanced themselves from the pit, so as not to hear the cries of Joseph as he begged them, as the verse testifies, "Since we saw the aggrievement of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen to him." While they were eating, they lifted their eyes and they saw some Ishmaelites. Judah said, "Let us go and sell him, etc." His brothers listened to him, i.e., they all agreed that after they finished eating, they would return to the pit and lift Joseph from there, and bring him to the Ishmaelites to sell him to them. (Since no hint is found in the verses that the Ishmaelites needed to come close to Jacob's sons on their way.) Meanwhile, while they they were speaking amongst themselves, far from the pit—behold!—without any of them knowing, Midianite men, merchants, crossed over by the pit (by Divine Providence). The Midianites pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit and brought him to the Ishmaelites and sold him to them for twenty [pieces of] silver. They brought Joseph to Egypt. Now, behold! after they ate, Reuven hurried by himself, separating from his brothers without them seeing, and returned quickly to the pit to lift Joseph out and return him to his father before his brothers could reach him to lift him out and sell him. However... as the melting of wax before the fire, so melted Reuven's heart and became water as he gazed into the pit, where Joseph was no longer. He tore his garments [in mourning], for he thought in his imagination that without a doubt, a bear or a lion hunted [Joseph] for its cubs, suffocating him to take him as its prey. It had carried him off alive, as he was, his head on his thighs and on his stomach, to some hole or to some den, to fill its hole with prey and its den with game. And that was why he didn't find any blood or bones! Reuven returned, in grief and in panic, to his brothers, and he cried and said, "Hei! The boy is no longer, for he has been ravaged! My plan, like yours, has been ruined! Now where do I go? I am guiltier than you all, because it was by my advice that you threw him into the pit, and it is as if I were the cause of his death!" All his brothers believed him and were astonished about this, as if G-d answered them that their brother should die. However, they were not pained, but glad to know that the one they hated was dead, without them having to lay a hand on him. Hence, they did not respond. After this, they discussed what to do to also save Reuven also from the accusations of their father. Accordingly, they dipped Joseph's coat in blood and sent it to their father, in order that he believe that Joseph was hunted down before he reached them. Now, when Jacob's sons came to their father, and they saw how Jacob mourned so exceedingly for his son, they regretted immediately everything they had done. But, what was to be done? If Joseph was already ravaged and had become the food of beasts of the field, all that remained for them to do was to comfort him with words, and so they did. Now, according to this [following], it will be clarified that the children of Jacob, the tribes of Y-ah, which He chose as His unique ones, were not wicked, guided by their evil inclinations; nor were their deaths such that it be said of them, "They will be torn forever. His wrath and His fury will keep eternally." Even if in a small moment they had sinned out of jealousy and hatred, since it is the way of people to be unjust, they could not, Heaven forbid, have remained in their rebellion. It would have abated quickly, they would have recognized their sin, and regretted everything they had done. They were exerting themselves with all their power to cleanse themselves of it, since when they all returned home, no man held back any of their courage and strength to console their father. That none of them sought out Joseph was because all of them fully believed without any shadow of a doubt that he was hunted down, and there was no hope to bring him back alive. That Reuven was silent when he heard the Judah's suggestion to sell Joseph was with the intention to conceal his good thoughts concerting Joseph from his brothers, so that his brothers not monitor him carefully to see what he was doing when he went alone to the pit. This was especially so after he heard Judah's suggestion, and he knew, or at least it appeared to him, that his brothers did not oppose Judah, the master among the brothers, and none disagreed and all were silent in deference to his suggestion. If he were to reveal his mind to them, they doubtless would not allow him to go alone to the pit as he had planned, lest he prevent them to doing to their brother as they wished. It is also understood why none responded to Reuven when he said to them, "The boy isn't there!" They should have said, "We sold him," but instead, they did not respond, because they did not sell him, and they did not know what had happened to him any more than did Reuven. It is also understood why Joseph said, "I was verily kidnapped." It was because he was talking about the Midianites who actually kidnapped him and took him away from the land of the Hebrews, since he did not suspect that his brothers sold him from the outset to the Midianites. Regarding what is written after this, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt," by his understanding, these were the Ishmaelites mentioned above, since in his understanding, "Ishmaelites" is a general term including all the children of Abraham aside from Isaac, and possibly these were descendants of Medan the son of Abraham. Even though the Midianites who sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites were themselves descendants of Abraham, they were certainly different people who were not true Ishmaelites. We cannot say that the sellers and buyers were one and the same, so they were called by a borrowed name separate from the sellers. There is further proof that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites are one and the same, since Scripture says here, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt to Potiphar," and after that it says, "And Potiphar bought him... from the hand of the Ishmaelites." And, after these words and truth, it will no longer be difficult to explain one verse that was repeated twice, which appears as if in contradiction to this structure. This is the statement of Joseph to his brothers when he admitted to them, "I am Joseph your brother, whom you sold to Egypt. Now, do not be distraught... that you sold me here," since the intention here is this: "You are the cause of my sale and coming to Egypt." This is similar to "and Solomon built the House. The Shadal [Samuel b. David Lo-Li] said that it is possible to add other, further examples, like, "And you will bring my hoariness down in grief to the grave" (below, Genesis 42:38), "You have killed the people of G‑d" (Numbers 17:6), "And this city shall burn with fire" (Jeremiah 38:23). Similarly, his brothers, in their hatred, were the reason Joseph was sold to Egypt. The proof of this, that in any case, they did not sell him to Egypt, is that it would have been sufficient [for Joseph] to say, "You sold me." Similarly, he says after this, "You did not send me here." It is understood that they did not send him, but were the cause that he be sent to Egypt. If you wish to explain the verse, "I was verily kidnapped," according to all the commentators, that the intention was regarding his brothers who kidnapped and sold him, then you would also be able to say that Joseph, when he saw the Midianites who pulled and sold him like masters, did not know who the kidnappers were: Were they the brothers? or were they the Midianites? Perhaps he thought in his imagination that his brothers sold him to the Midianites from the outset, and therefore said to them in his admission, "whom you sold." If you would argue that if the brothers did not sell him, they would not be silent when he said to them, "whom you sold," then the rebuttal is by your side. The brothers were not able to answer him [at all], not even the question, "Is my father still alive?" because they were confounded before him. How could they be so brazen as to bicker with him about their sin? Until here are the words of the one dear to my soul, Samuel Chaim b. David Lo-Li zt"l. Even though I do not agree with him on all the details of the explanation, the main thing here is that his words and the words of the Rashbam are correct in my view: it appears to me that those who pulled Joseph out of the pit were the Midianites and they sold him to the Ishmaelites, and Jacob's children did not see or know about any of this at all. Joseph believed that they sold him to the Midianites and said to them, "Go pull him out of the pit." Joseph's brothers never said to him that they didn't sell him, since in speaking about it, it would be revealed that their intent was that he die in the pit. How could they say to him, "Don't think that we sold you. It was only in our heart that you die in the pit. When afterwards we agreed to Judah's suggestion to sell you, the Midianites got there first and sold you themselves!" The reason for "I was verily kidnapped" was regarding Joseph's brothers, who (in Joseph's belief) sold him, and kidnapped him from his father.

Yaakov’s sons [pulled] Yoseif from the pit and sold him to the Yishmaelites... Rashi deduces this from what is written, “They pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif.” If it was the Midianites [who did all this], how could they sell him? He did not yet belong to them! And if [you suggest that] the Midianites pulled him out of the pit without the brothers’ knowledge and sold him, why is it written later (45:4), “I am Yoseif your brother, whom you sold into Egypt”? They never sold him! And why would the brothers say, “Come let us sell him to the Yishmaelites,” if they never sold him? Perforce, “they pulled” refers to Yaakov’s sons who sold him to the Yishmaelites, and the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites? Perhaps they sold him to the מדנים [written without the intermediate yud, see v. 36], which is a different nation — as it is written (25:2), “Medan, Midian...” [The answer is:] If so, why does the verse mention, “Midianite merchants passed by”? They must be mentioned in connection with Yoseif’s sale, that the Yishmaelites sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites to the מדנים, and the מדנים to Potiphar. So it seems to me. Re’m asks: The verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Yishmaelites” (39:1). [But did not the Yishmaelites already sell him to the Midianites?] It appears that the answer is: Although he was sold several times, the Midianites had not yet paid. Because of this, he still belonged to the Yishmaelites, as the Midianites received [from their sale of Yoseif] only the profit, i.e., the amount that exceeded what they owed the Yishmaelites.

Midyanite men, merchants, passed by, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit. Some commentaries identify the Midyanite merchants with the group of Ishmaelites mentioned previously. The name “Midyanite” can refer generally to nomadic merchants. 10 Others explain that the Midyanites and Ishmaelites were two distinct groups. 11 They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites. If the Midyanites are not identified with the Ishmaelites, then the brothers sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites who subsequently sold him to the Midyanites. 12 According to another interpretation, the brothers did not actually sell Joseph, and may even have been unaware of the sale; rather, the Midyanites came along while the brothers were eating, extracted him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites. A third possibility is that the brothers had the Midyanites extract Joseph from the pit, and then the brothers themselves sold Joseph. 13 Joseph was sold for twenty silver pieces, a considerable amount, that they divided among themselves. According to the prophet Amos, it was enough for each of them to buy a pair of shoes; 14 and they brought Joseph to Egypt.

“Then Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph up out of the pit” [37:28]. “They sat down to a meal” [37:25]. They sat down to eat at a distance, so that they should not hear the cry of their brother in the pit. Then a group of Ishmaelites came from the city of Gilead carrying wax, balm and old wine and was on their way to Egypt. Rashi asks a question. Why does the verse tell us what they were carrying? The explanation is that the verse tells is the merit of Joseph, since the Ishmaelites used to carry merchandise that stank. However, now it happened that the righteous Joseph should not smell bad things. Therefore, they were carrying only spices and good wine, so that Joseph should only smell pleasant odors. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:25.) When they threw Joseph into the pit, they threw him in naked, without a garment, only with an amulet around his neck. Raphael came and made Joseph a garment out of it. They sold Joseph while he was still in the pit, and his brothers saw the garment when the Ishmaelites brought Joseph out of the pit. They argued with the Ishmaelites. They said: we sold him to you without a garment. The Ishmaelites gave them shoes for the garment. Imre Noam wrote this. (Imre Noam, Genesis, 37:23.)

“They pulled Joseph up” [37:28]. Rashi writes. The brothers pulled Joseph out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites, and the Ishmaelites sold him to the Midianites. The Midianites sold him to the Egyptians. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:28.) However, Hizkuni and Bahya write. “Midianite traders passed by” [37:28]. The Midianites passed near the pit and heard Joseph shouting. They pulled him out and sold him to the Ishmaelites. The Ishmaelites gave Joseph to the Midianites to hold as a pledge. The Ishmaelites and the Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianites sold him in Egypt” [37:36]. This means, the Midianites sold him in Egypt. Later, the verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. This means, the Ishmaelites sold him into Egypt. That is to say, Joseph was sold through both, the Ishmaelites and the Midianites. Joseph said to his brothers when he made himself known to them, “whom you sold into Egypt” [Genesis, 45:4]. Joseph said: because you threw me into the pit; through that I was sold into Egypt. However, the brothers did not sell him, and did not know what happened to him. Reuben came to the pit and did not find him. All the brothers thought that a wild animal ate Joseph, since the brothers were not present when the Midianites pulled him out of the pit. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:28; Bahya, Genesis, 37:28.) Another explanation is that Potiphar saw that Joseph was a handsome man. He thought that he was not a slave. He must be someone important and thought that the Midianites had kidnapped him. Potiphar said to the Midianites, give me a guarantee that he was not kidnapped. That is why the verse says: “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. That is to say, Potiphar received guarantees from the Ishmaelites and therefore, he bought Joseph. Rabbi Isserl writes. The Ishmaelites and the brothers sold Joseph to the Midianites. The Ishmaelites gave silver into the hands of the brothers for Joseph and the Midianites pulled Joseph out of the pit with the brothers. The Midianites did not want Joseph out of their hands. We are entitled to Joseph because he is in our hands. The Ishmaelites could not agree with the Midianites. They said: let us take Joseph to Egypt. You will take him and sell him in Egypt and the Ishmaelites took their principal and the Midianites took the rest. (Be’ure Maharai, Genesis, 39:1.) Toldot Yizhak writes. The Midianites were the brokers for the Ishmaelites. Therefore, the Midianites pulled up Joseph. They wanted to show that Joseph was handsome. It is the custom of the brokers that they show the merchandise with their own hands to the merchant. The broker sells the merchandise. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianite traders passed by, they pulled Joseph out of the pit. They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites” [37:28]. That is to say, the Midianites sold him to the Ishmaelites and the Ishmaelites sold him to Potiphar. That is, they were brokers and sold him into Egypt. The Ishmaelites said to the Midianites. As you were brokers to me, so too you should be brokers to Potiphar and help me sell Joseph. Therefore, it is written in the verse once that the Midianites sold Joseph and once it is written that the Ishmaelites sold him. So write the commentaries. (Toldot Yizhak, Genesis, 37:28.) One can give another explanation that the Ishmaelites gave money for Joseph. They said to the Midianites: we know well that the Egyptians will not want to buy Joseph because he is circumcised. They will think that it is a defect in Joseph and he will not have children, since the Egyptians did not know about circumcision. Therefore the Ishmaelites said to the Midianites. Take Joseph in your hands, as if he was yours and you will sell him. When the Egyptians will see that he is circumcised, then we Ishmaelites will testify that it is a custom to be circumcised, since we Ishmaelites also practice circumcision. We Ishmaelites will say that we practice circumcision and we have children, just like all the other nations. We practice circumcision so that we will not engage in licentiousness. Therefore the Ishmaelites led him to Potiphar. They knew well that Potiphar could not have children and could not sleep with his wife. They thought Potiphar would certainly buy him, because he could not sleep with his wife. Potiphar was afraid to buy slaves in his house so that his wife should not have illicit relations with that slave. Therefore, we will tell Potiphar that the circumcision was given so that one would not engage in illicit sexual relations and Potiphar will buy him. Therefore, the verse says, “The Midianites, meanwhile, sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, a courtier of Pharaoh” [37:36]. That is to say, the Midianites sold him, and then the verse says, “Potiphar bought him from the Ishmaelites” [39:1]. That is to say, Ishmael was the rightful owner to sell Joseph.

“Twenty pieces of silver” [37:28]. Hizkuni and Bahya write. The Holy One said: you sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver. This is equivalent to five selahs, five silver coins. Therefore, each firstborn must give five selahs to redeem him, because Joseph was also a firstborn. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:28; Bahya, Genesis, 37:28.)

Therefore the reverent person ought to have his intention connected to the higher things, and have his eating be to sustain his body alone and not to be drawn to physical pleasures, for being drawn to physical pleasures is the cause for the loss of both body and soul, and the cause for forgetting the point, for out of eating and drinking he will become full of himself [lit., lift up his heart] and stumble into great pitfalls and sins, and do things which should not be done. See how Joseph’s brothers sold him only in the middle of eating and drinking, as it is said, “They sat down to a meal, and looking up…” (Gen 37:28. While eating the brothers looked up and saw the Ishmaelites to who they sold Joseph. R. Bahya expands upon this more fully in his commentary to the Torah on this verse.) And for this reason the Torah said not to eat on Yom Kippur, which is the day of judgment for criminal cases involving people, because one’s eating might cause his soul to sin. And they even said in civil cases dealing with monetary compensation: “akhal ve-shatah al yorah” – “Don’t instruct right after eating and drinking!” (A rhyming proverb in the Hebrew. Yorah, which means to instruct or teach, is the same verb used in the Biblical passage from Lev. 10:11 that R. Bahya cites. It is from the same Hebrew root as the word Torah. R. Bahya subtly makes another point here besides the obvious one that people are inclined to make bad judgments right after they’ve eaten and drunk. Namely, with this wordplay and the analogy to the Biblical priests, he’s reiterating his general contention that engaging in torah is a sacramental priest-likeactivity, even when done by non-priests – i.e., rabbinical torah scholars, or even ordinary Jews fasting on Yom Kippur.) Why is this so? From what is written, “Drink no wine or other intoxicant, you or your sons,” (Lev 10:9, addressed to Aaron and his sons, that is, the priests.) and connected to it, “to instruct [le-horot] the Israelites.” (Ibid., 10:11.) When they were commanded to instruct [le-horot], they were warned to avoid wine, because wine confuses the mind, and it does not distinguish between the holy and the profane, which is why it is written “to distinguish.” (Ibid., 10:10.) All this is proof that eating and drinking causes human beings to move themselves away off the track of Torah and worship, and to cast aside all the statutes of Ha-Shem, may He be Blessed. All this is caused when one has eaten and is satisfied, and therefore the Torah commanded, “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and you shall bless” (Deut 8:10). That is to say, after you will have eaten and have been satisfied, and you are close to throwing off the yoke of the commandments, “You shall bless YHWH your God” at the very moment you need to bless Him, so that you will take upon yourself the yoke of His rule and bless His name. And this in my opinion is the meaning of the Scripture, “In all your ways, know Him;” (Prov 3:6.) it means even at the time of eating when you are close to forgetting Him and to severing your reason from your mind, at that very moment, “know Him” and cleave to Him. And if you do this, “He will straighten your paths,” (Prov 3:6.) He will straighten your ways on the paths of life, namely, the soul’s successful attainment of the world to come. If so, then a person ought to eat only for the sustenance of his body alone, and it is forbidden for him to pursue any sort of pleasure unless it is to make his body healthy and make the eyes of his intellect clear-sighted. In order for his body to be healthy and strong, he should pursue what pleases [his intellect] and his Creator, for his organs are combined and possess the capacity exactly in the measure that enables him to bear the yoke of the Torah and its commandments, which is the point of the verse written about the tribe of Issachar, “he bent his shoulder to bear the burden” (Gen 49:15), which is the same language used to refer to the giving of the Torah, “He [God] bent the sky and came down” (2 Sam 22:10). And anyone whose intention is this, is an angel of the Lord of Hosts, but whoever does not direct their intention to this end, is “likened to the beasts that perish.” (Ps 49:13,21). “You can see for yourself” (1 Sam 24:12: Re-eh gam re-eh – “you can see for yourself” (JSB).) Joseph the righteous, who was noted for his quality of reverence [yir’ah], from what is written, “I am a God-fearing man” (Gen 42:18.) and “Am I a substitute for God?” (Ibid. 50:19.) hinted at this point when he said, “take something for the hunger of your houses and be off.” (Ibid. 42:33.) He comes to instruct and to teach people to know that they should only eat to break their hunger, not to fill their belly and be drawn by the taste, which is base and to be scorned, because that is a disgrace to us, utter waste, and a thing which has no point to it. And do not say that this because it was a time of famine, because when Joseph was “a prince and commander of peoples,” (Is 55:4.) and the treasuries of the king were under his control, he had the power to supply bread and food to his father and brothers, as in the other the years of plenty. However, instead he made it known to us that this is the way of Torah and fear of Ha-Shem (may He be blessed!), that a person should only eat, satisfy himself, and fill his belly to satisfy his soul.

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“You shall take five shekels each by head count; in the sacred shekel you shall take, twenty gera is the shekel” (Numbers 3:47). “You shall take five shekels each…” – the Holy One blessed be He said: You sold Rachel’s firstborn, that is, Joseph, for twenty silver pieces, which are five shekels; therefore, each and every one of you will redeem his firstborn son for five sela according to the Tyrian maneh. (In that system of currency, each shekel, or sela, is worth four dinars.) “You shall give the silver to Aaron and to his sons, the redemptions of those among them who remain” (Numbers 3:48) “You shall give the silver to Aaron and to his sons, the redemptions of those among them who remain” – just as the Levites were given to Aaron and his sons, as it is written: “You shall give the Levites to Aaron and to his sons; they are given to him from the children of Israel” (Numbers 3:9), so, the money of redemption that was in place of the Levites was given to him. “Moses took the silver of the redemption from those who were over and above the number of redemptions of the Levites” (Numbers 3:49). “Moses took the silver of the redemption…” – what did he do to them? (To the people.) Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: This is what he did: He wrote Levi on each of twenty-two thousand notes and placed them in a receptacle. In addition, on each of two hundred and seventy-three notes, he wrote: Five sela, and placed them in the receptacle and mixed them. The father of a firstborn would extend his hand into the receptacle. If a note on which: Son of Levi, was written entered his hand, he would say to him: A son of Levi has already redeemed you. One into whose hand a note entered on which five sela was written, he would say to him: Give the five sela that you owe. All of them did so. Rabbi Neḥemya says: If so, he can deliberate with him and say to him: It is not for you to say to give five sela. Each of the notes upon which Levi was written was taken. If I place my hand, what will enter my hand if not notes of five sela? Who will say to me that had there been a note of Levi there that I would not have obtained it. Rather, this is what he did: He wrote Levi on each of twenty-two thousand two hundred and seventy-three notes, and on two hundred and seventy-three: Five sela. They came and placed their hand. One into whose hand a note of five sela entered, if he came to say anything to him, Moses would respond to him: Had you merited it, would there not have been a note of Levi? Rather, you are obligated by Heaven. At that moment he would give it.

“Midianite men, merchants, passed, and they pulled and lifted Joseph from the pit; they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces, and they brought Joseph to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28). “Midianite [midyanim] men, merchants, passed” – their contentiousness [hadayyanim] passed. (Joseph’s brothers regretted what they had done.) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Baitus in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon: It is written: “Why do you lead us astray, Lord, from Your ways?” (Isaiah 63:17) – when You wished, You placed in their heart to love, and when You wished, You placed in their heart to hate. The Holy One blessed be He said: You sold Rachel’s son for twenty maot, which are five sela’im. That is why each and every one of you will separate as the value of his son five sela’im of the Tyrian maneh. (This is a reference to the mitzva of redeeming firstborn sons (see Maharzu). ) Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: The Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: You sold Rachel’s son for twenty silver pieces. Consequently, each and every one of you received a beka per person. (Each one of the brothers involved in the sale received a beka, which equals half a shekel.) That is what is written: “One beka per head, one half-shekel” (Exodus 38:26). (The head tax mentioned in the verse was set at the same price that each of the brothers had received for the sale of Joseph (Maharzu). )

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: “This is the legacy [toledot] of Jacob, Joseph” – the verse need not have said so, but rather, “this is the legacy of Jacob, Reuben.” (Generally, when the verse introduces the legacy [toledot] of an individual, what follows is a list of his sons, and, often, their sons (see, e.g., Genesis 10:1). That being the case, the verse should have listed Reuben, Jacob’s oldest son, first, and then the rest of the sons. ) Rather, why does the verse state “Joseph”? It is because everything that befell this one befell that one. (Whatever befell Jacob befell Joseph.) Just as this one was born circumcised, so too, that one was born circumcised. (See Bereshit Rabba 63:7; Midrash Tehillim 9:7. ) Just as this one’s mother was barren, so too, that one’s mother was barren. Just as this one’s mother bore two [sons], so too, that one’s mother bore two. Just as this one was firstborn, so too, that one was firstborn. (Jacob bought the birthright from Esau and was therefore considered the firstborn. Joseph was firstborn to his mother, and Jacob awarded him the double portion usually allotted to the firstborn by declaring that his sons Manasseh and Ephraim would be considered independent tribes (Etz Yosef). ) Just as this one’s mother encountered difficulty with birth, so too, that one’s mother encountered difficulty when she gave birth. Just as this one’s brother hated him, so too, that one’s brothers hated him. Just as this one’s brother sought to kill him, so too, that one’s brothers sought to kill him. Just as this one was a shepherd, so too, that one was a shepherd. This one was hated, and that one was hated. This one was robbed twice, and that one was robbed twice. (Jacob referred twice to sheep stolen from his care for which he would then have to compensate Laban (Genesis 31:39). Joseph himself was kidnapped by his brothers and then stolen from them and sold into slavery (see Genesis 37:28; Maharzu). ) This one was blessed with wealth, and that one was blessed with wealth. This one went outside of the Land [of Israel], and that one went outside the Land [of Israel]. This one married a woman from outside the Land [of Israel], and that one married a woman from outside the Land [of Israel]. This one bore children outside the Land [of Israel], and that one bore children outside of the Land [of Israel]. This one was accompanied by angels, and that one was accompanied by angels. (See section 14. ) This one rose to greatness by means of a dream, and that one rose to greatness by means of a dream. (God blessed Jacob in a dream (Genesis 28:12–15). Joseph rose to power by interpreting Pharoah’s dream (Etz Yosef). ) This one was blessed in the house of his father-in-law, and that one was blessed in the house of his father-in-law. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine, and that one ended the famine. (Joseph interpreted Pharaoh’s dream as indicating only seven years of famine rather than fourteen or twenty-eight, and due to his interpretation, the famine was in fact meant to last only seven years. But when Jacob came to Egypt, the famine ended abruptly after only two years (see Bereshit Rabba 89:9). ) This one administered an oath, and that one administered an oath. (Jacob asked Joseph to take an oath to bury him in the Land of Israel, and Joseph administered a similar oath to the children of Israel. ) This one commanded, and that one commanded. (Jacob commanded his sons to bury him in the Land of Israel (Genesis 49:29). Joseph commanded his servants to embalm Jacob (Genesis 50:2). ) This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one’s bones were taken up [to the Land of Israel], and that one’s bones were taken up [to the Land of Israel].

“Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons, because he was a son of his old age; he crafted him a fine [passim] tunic” (Genesis 37:3). “His brothers saw that their father loved him more than all his brothers, and they hated him, and could not speak peaceably to him” (Genesis 37:4). “Israel loved Joseph” – Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya: Rabbi Yehuda says: Because the contours of [Joseph’s] face resembled his. Rabbi Neḥemya said: All the halakhot that Shem and Ever had transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. “He crafted him a fine tunic” – Reish Lakish said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: A person must refrain from treating one of his children differently, as due to the fine tunic that Jacob crafted for Joseph, “and they hated him…” “Fine [passim]” – as it would reach the palm of his hand [pas yado]. (This was a sign of status, as it indicated that the wearer did not need to labor with his hands.) Alternatively, passim – as it was extremely thin and light and could be hidden in the palm of his hand. “Fine [passim]” – they conducted a lottery [shehefisu] in its regard to determine who would take it to his father, and it fell on Judah. “Fine [passim]” – after the troubles that befell him: Peh – Potifar; samekh – merchants [soḥarim]; yod – Ishmaelites [Yishmaelim]; mem – Midianites [Midyanim]. (See Genesis 37:28. ) “Fine [passim]” – Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: “Come and see the works of God” (Psalms 66:5), and it is written thereafter: “He turned the sea into dry land” (Psalms 66:6). Why was it that “they hated him”? It was so that the sea would be split before them; passim – strips in the sea [pas yam]. (God arranged that the brothers would hate Joseph, leading to his becoming a slave in Egypt, so that Joseph could withstand the temptation of Potifar’s wife. Consequently, he would accrue great merit, and it was as a result of that merit that the sea was split for the Israelites (Rashash). )

“Joseph was taken down to Egypt and Potiphar, the official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner, an Egyptian man, purchased him from the Ishmaelites who had taken him down there” (Genesis 39:1). “Joseph was taken down to Egypt.” It is written: “With ropes of man I drew them, [with bonds of love; I was for them like those who lift the yoke above their jaws, and I leaned to them to provide food]” (Hosea 11:4) – these are Israel, [as it is stated]: “Draw me; after you I will run” (Song of Songs 1:4). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – as it is written: “I loved you, said the Lord” (Malachi 1:2). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea 11:4) – as I elevated their enemies over them. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that they expressed with their jaws, as they said: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:8). (This was stated by the Israelites as they committed the sin of the Golden Calf. ) But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food” (Hosea 11:4) – I provide them with many foods to eat; “There will be abundance of grain in the land” (Psalms 72:16). Another matter, “with ropes of man I drew them [emshakhem]” (Hosea 11:4) – this is Joseph, [as it is stated]: “They pulled [vayimshekhu] and lifted Joseph from the pit” (Genesis 37:28). “With bonds of love” (Hosea 11:4) – “Israel loved Joseph more than all his sons” (Genesis 37:3). “I was for them like those who lift the yoke” (Hosea11:4) – as I elevated his enemies over him. Who was that? It was Potiphar’s wife. Why to that extent? “Above their jaws” (Hosea 11:4) – because of the words that he expressed with his jaws – “Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” (Genesis 37:2). But ultimately, “I leaned to them to provide food (Hosea 11:4) – an abundance of food. (Eventually, after his actions caused him to be brought down to Egypt, Joseph ended up providing food for his entire family, as well as for the entire population of Egypt and other lands. )

“The chief butler related his dream to Joseph, and said to him: In my dream, behold, a vine was before me” (Genesis 40:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils, and it was as though it was budding; its blossoms emerged, and its clusters produced ripe grapes” (Genesis 40:10). “The chief butler related…behold, a vine was before me” – this is Israel, as it is stated: “You transported a vine from Egypt” (Psalms 80:9). “And on the vine were three tendrils” – Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “It was as though it was budding” – the redemption of Israel was budding. “Its blossoms emerged” – the redemption of Israel blossomed. “Its clusters produced ripe grapes” – the vine that budded immediately blossomed; grapes that emerged immediately ripened. “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand; I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand” (Genesis 40:11). “Joseph said to him: This is its interpretation: The three tendrils are three days” (Genesis 40:12). “In three more days Pharaoh will raise your head and restore you to your position, and you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand, like the former circumstance where you would provide him with drink” (Genesis 40:13). “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand” – on this basis the Sages instituted the four cups on Passover eve. Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Benaya: Corresponding to the four expressions of redemption that were stated in Egypt: “I will take you out…I will deliver you…I will redeem you…I will take you” (Exodus 6:6–7). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: Corresponding to the four cups stated here: “And Pharaoh's cup was in my hand… you will give Pharaoh's cup into his hand…” (These are the first and fourth mentions of the word cup. Between them there are: “I took the grapes, pressed them into Pharaoh's cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh's hand.”) Rabbi Levi said: Corresponding to the four kingdoms. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the four cups [kosot] of bewilderment that the Holy One blessed be He will give the idolaters to drink. That is what is written: “For so said the Lord, God of Israel, to me: Take this cup of the wine of anger” (Jeremiah 25:15); “a golden cup is Babylon in the hand of the Lord…” (Jeremiah 51:7); “he will rain…upon the wicked [ blazing coals and sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot [menat kosam]]” (Psalms 11:6). (The fourth is: “For a cup is in the hand of the Lord, with foaming wine…” (Psalms 75:10) (Jerusalem Talmud Pesaḥim 10:1).) Corresponding to them, the Holy One blessed be He will give Israel four cups [kosot] of salvation in the future, as it is stated: “The Lord is my lot [menat kosi]” (Psalms 16:5); “I will lift a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (Psalms 116:13): “You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup is full” (Psalms 23:5). “A cup of salvation [kos yeshua]” (Psalms 116:13) is not written here, but rather, “a cup of salvation [kos yeshuot]” (The word yeshuot is plural, such that a more literal translation would be “a cup of salvations.” Consequently, this alludes to the third and fourth cups. ) – one for the messianic era and one for the days of Gog. “If only you remember me when it shall be well for you, and please, perform kindness with me and mention me to Pharaoh, and take me out of this house” (Genesis 40:14). [Joseph] said to him: ‘You gave me good tidings; (The butler’s dream, as explained above, alluded to the redemption of Israel, and therefore constituted good tidings. ) I, too, will give you good tidings: “In three more days…if only you remember me…”’ “For I was abducted from the land of the Hebrews and here, too, I have done nothing, that they placed me in the pit” (Genesis 40:15). “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti]” – Rav Aḥa said: From here [it may be derived] that he was abducted twice. (He was sold by his brothers, and then the Midyanites pulled him from the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites (see Genesis 37:27–28). Alternatively, his being thrown into the pit by his brothers was considered a kidnapping, and he was subsequently stolen from the pit by the Ishmaelites (Maharzu, 84:6).) “And here, too, I have done [nothing]…”

“Joseph is a fruitful tree, a fruitful tree alongside a spring; branches run over the wall” (Genesis 49:22). “Joseph is a fruitful [porat] tree ” – a son who broke faith [shehefer] with his brothers; a son whose brothers broke faith with him; (Joseph brought his father evil reports about his brothers (Genesis 37:2); they later sold him into slavery (Genesis 37:28). ) a son who defied [shehefer] his master’s wife; a son whose master’s wife turned against [shehefera] him. Rabbi Avin said: The son who achieved greatness through cows [parot]. (Joseph rose to prominence after interpreting Pharaoh’s dream, which featured cows.) Joseph is the son who achieved greatness through produce [perot]. “Joseph is a fruitful tree” – Joseph achieved greatness. Regarding them all it is written: “The maidservants approached…” (Genesis 33:6) (See Bereshit Rabba 90:4.) – this is what he said to him: I must repay you for that eye. (Jacob wanted to compensate Joseph for having obscured Rachel from Esau’s eye.) “Branches [banot] run [tzaada] over the wall…” – you find that when Joseph emerged to rule over Egypt, the daughters [banot] of kings would peer through the slits and would cast upon him bracelets, pendants, nose rings, and rings so he would lift his eyes and look at them. Nevertheless, he did not look at them. The Holy One blessed be He said: You did not lift your eyes and look at them; as you live, you will cause your daughters (The daughters of Tzelofḥad.) to have a foothold [tze’ida] in the Torah. What is a foothold? A Torah portion. (A passage regarding the laws of inheritance (Numbers 27:1–11) was stated as a response to the request of the daughters of Tzelofḥad. )

The Yosef narrative is marked by a glaring textual difficulty – the insertion of the Yehuda/Tamar episode at a critical moment in the description of Yosef’s sale into slavery. The events leading up to the sale of Yosef begin in Genesis 37:12. (Please read Genesis 37:12 through Genesis 39:1 for a complete grasp of the midrashic discussion.) Genesis 37:19–28 describes the brothers’ initial plan to kill Yosef and the discussion that leads first to their casting him into the pit, and then to the final decision to sell him. Verses 29–35 describe the aftermath of that decision and its particular effects upon Reuven and Yaakov. Verse 36 ends the passage (Fortuitously for our purposes, in the case of chapters 37–39, there is agreement between the traditional Jewish divisions of the biblical text (according to parasha, indicated by the spacing in the Torah scroll) and the later Christian divisions (indicated by chapter and verse numberings). The Christian numbering of chapters and verses is employed virtually everywhere in the Jewish world as a useful convention for ordering the Tanakh. In these three chapters at least, the chapter divisions reflect the Jewish tradition, which makes it easier to show the interpretive problems posed by the interpolation of the Tamar and Yehuda story into the Yosef narrative.) with the statement: “And the Midianites sold him [Yosef] to Egypt, to Potiphar, Par’oh’s chamberlain, the chief executioner.”

In other cases, however, a closer look at a seemingly difficult midrash reveals that what appears to be a contradiction to the biblical text is, in fact, a subtle close reading of it. (Rashbam calls this omek peshuto shel mikra (a deeper reading of the plain sense of the text). See, for example, Rashbam’s commentary on Genesis 37:28, vayaavru.) One such case is the series of narrative expansions on the story of Hana found in Berakhot 31a–b. (See Chapter 16.)

(Exod. 30:13:) A HALF SHEKEL. R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differ. R. Judah says: Because (in the matter of the calf) they sinned in the middle of the day, they would give the half shekel. But R. Nehemiah said: Because they sinned for six hours in the day, they would give the half shekel, (ySheq. 2:4 or 3 (46d); see Tanh., Exod. 9:10. See also below, Exod. 9:13.) since it consists of six grammata. (The Greek word (gramma in the singular) denotes a small weight of 1/24 ounce.) R. Judah bar Nehemiah said in the name of R. Johanan ben Zakkay: Because Israel transgressed (rt.: 'BR) the Ten Commandments, they would give ten gerahs. (Cf. Exod. 30:13 = Numb. 3:47: THE SHEKEL IS TWENTY GERAHS. Similarly Lev. 27:25; Numb. 18:16; Ezek. 45:12.) R. Berekhyah said in the name of Resh Laqish: You sold Rachel's first-born for twenty silver (according to Gen. 37:28); therefore, in the case of every first-born that you shall have, his redemption shall be five shekels of silver, as stated (in Numb. 3:47): YOU SHALL TAKE FIVE EACH.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. As soon as they had sold Joseph (in Gen. 37:28), what is written (in vs. 29)? WHEN REUBEN RETURNED UNTO THE PIT < … > when he did not find him, HE RENT HIS CLOTHES. In addition they all arose and dispersed, and Judah also dispersed with them. [Ergo] (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

(Gen. 37:28:) WHEN MIDIANITE < TRADERS > PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And they (the Midianites in vs. 36) SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT TO POTIPHAR…. Three bills of sale (Gk.: onai, i.e., “purchases” or “contracts for tax farming.”) were made over him. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:22 for other totals.) When he was sold, they all began to cry: Woe (Way). Thus it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS (wayehi) AT THAT TIME. (Ibid., cont.:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (rt.: YRD). For what sin did he go away? (Gen. R. 85:3.) R. Hiyya bar Abba < said > in the name of R. Johanan: Everyone who begins with a good deed and does not finish it causes himself to bury his wife and children and causes a lowering of status (rt.: YRD) for himself. Who was this? This was Judah, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

Another interpretation (of Ps. 37:28): FOR THE LORD LOVES JUSTICE < AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS >. [THEY ARE PROTECTED FOREVER]. < The verse > speaks about Joseph. And how did he protect him? [See] what is written (in Gen. 37:28): WHEN MIDIANITE TRADERS PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And with what were they laden? (Gen. R. 84:17.) Now is it not the custom for camels to bear only < foul-smelling > 'itran? (One of various kinds of tar products or tree resin used for lighting, etc.) Yet it is written here (in Gen. 37:25): < WITH THEIR CAMELS BEARING > SPICE, BALSAM, AND LABDANUM! It is simply that the Holy One said: Should this righteous man be set in the midst of a bad odor? Instead, I will order a good odor for him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28) AND DOES NOT ABANDON HIS SAINTS. (Ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. This refers to Potiphar, who did not take him for work but for something else. (I.e., for sodomy. So Rashi on Sot. 13b; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen. 39:1; Gen. R. 86:3.) What did the Holy One do? He castrated him. Ergo (in Ps. 37:28): BUT THE SEED OF THE WICKED ARE CUT OFF. Now CUT OFF only denotes castration. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 22:24): < ANYTHING WITH ITS TESTICLES > CRUSHED, SMASHED, TORN OUT, OR CUT OFF < YOU SHALL NOT OFFER TO THE LORD >. And where is it shown that he was not a eunuch < already >, but that the Holy One had castrated him? Where it is stated (in Gen. 39:1): < WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN DOWN TO EGYPT >, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Rabbi Ṭarphon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, rose and came from Mount Sinai and was revealed unto the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them" (Deut. 33:2). And "Seir" means only the sons of Esau, as it is said, "And Esau dwelt in Mount Seir" (Gen. 36:8). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: It is written therein, "Thou shalt do no murder" (Ex. 20:13). They replied to Him: We are unable to abandon the blessing with which Isaac blessed Esau, for he said to him, "By thy sword shalt thou live" (Gen. 27:40). Thence He turned and was revealed unto the children of Ishmael, as it is said, "He shined forth from Mount Paran" (Deut. 33:2). "Paran" means only the sons of Ishmael, as it is said, "And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran" (Gen. 21:21). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: Will ye accept for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He answered them: "Thou shalt not steal" (Ex. 20:15) is written therein. They said to Him: We are not able to abandon the usage which our fathers observed, for they brought Joseph down into Egypt, as it is said, "For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews" (Gen. 40:15). Thence He sent || messengers to all the nations of the world. He said unto them: Will ye receive for yourselves the Torah? They said to Him: What is written therein? He said to them: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:3). They said to Him: We have no delight in the Torah, therefore let Him give His Torah to His people, as it is said, "The Lord will give strength unto his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace" (Ps. 29:11). Thence He returned and was revealed unto the children of Israel, as it is said, "And he came from the ten thousands of holy ones" (Deut. 33:2). The expression "ten thousands" means the children of Israel, as it is said, "And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel" (Num. 10:36). With Him were thousands twice-told of chariots, even twenty thousand of holy angels, and His right hand was holding the Torah, as it is said, "At his right hand was a fiery law unto them" (Deut. 33:2).

“The tablets were the work of God and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets” (Exodus 32:16). “The tablets were the work of God.” Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Each and every day, a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Ḥorev and proclaims: ‘Woe unto the creations for the affront to the Torah, as anyone who does not regularly engage in the Torah is ostracized from before the Holy One blessed be He,’ as it is stated: “The tablets were the work of God.” (God’s occupation, as it were, is involvement in Torah, and therefore anyone who ignores Torah ignores God (Matnot Kehuna; see Tanḥuma, Ki Tisa 16). ) “Engraved [ḥarut] on the tablets.” Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yirmeya, and the Rabbis, Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not read it as ḥarut, but rather as ḥerut – freedom from the exiles. Rabbi Neḥemya says: Freedom from the angel of death. The Rabbis say: Freedom from suffering. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said: If the angel of death were to come and say before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You created me in this world for naught,’ He would say: ‘I granted you dominion over every nation in the world except for this nation, to whom I granted freedom.’ That is, “ḥarut on the tablets.” “The people saw that Moses tarried in descending from the mountain, and the people assembled around Aaron and said to him: Rise, make us a god that will go before us, because this man Moses, who took us up from the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him” (Exodus 32:1). “The people saw that Moses tarried [boshesh].” What is “tarried [boshesh]”? Six hours had passed [ba’u shesh] and he had not descended. Why? It is because he had stipulated to them: In forty days I will bring you the Torah. When six hours passed [on the fortieth day] and Moses had not descended, immediately, “the people assembled around Aaron.” The Rabbis say: The accuser found his opportunity at that moment, as Moses was seen suspended between the heavens and earth, and they were pointing at him with a finger and saying: “Because this man Moses.” At that moment, Ḥur confronted them and said to them: ‘You fools, (Literally, you whose heads were severed at the neck.) do you not recall what miracles the Holy One blessed be He performed on your behalf?’ Immediately, they arose against him and killed him. They surrounded Aaron, as it is stated: “The people assembled around Aaron.” They said to him: ‘Just as we did to that one, so we will do to you.’ When Aaron saw that, he was afraid, as it is stated: “Aaron saw and he built an altar [mizbe’aḥ] before it [lefanav]” (Exodus 32:5). What is mizbe’aḥ? Due to the one who was slaughtered before him [min hazavuaḥ shelefanav]. Another matter, “he built an altar,” they sought to build an altar with him, but he did not allow them to do so. He said to them: ‘Allow me, and I will build it myself, as it is not in keeping with the honor due the altar for another to build it.’ But Aaron intended to delay matters. He said: ‘By the time I build it by myself, Moses will descend.’ He built it, but Moses did not descend. Immediately, they arose early the next day, as the prophet cries out: “However, they arose early and corrupted all their exploits” (Zephaniah 3:7). “The people sat to eat and drink, and they rose to revel” (Exodus 32:6) in idol worship. Wherever you find sitting [yeshiva], you find a mishap, as we found regarding the generation of the Dispersion, as it is stated: “They found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they settled [vayeshvu] there” (Genesis 11:2). What mishap was there? “They said: Come let us build us a city” (Genesis 11:4). “They sat [vayeshvu] to eat bread” (Genesis 37:25), and it is written: “They sold Joseph” (Genesis 37:28). “Israel settled [vayeshev] in the Shitim” (Numbers 25:1). What mishap was there? “The people began to engage in licentiousness with the daughters of Moav” (Numbers 25:1). What was their end? “Those who died [in the plague were twenty-four thousand]” (Numbers 25:9). Here, too, it is sitting, [implying] idol worship: “The people sat to eat….” The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘They rose to revel in idol worship, and you are sitting here? “Descend!”’ (Exodus 32:7). At that moment, Moses sought to descend, but he encountered angels of destruction. He feared them and he did not descend, as it is written: “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury” (Deuteronomy 9:19). What did Moses do? He went and grasped the [Divine] throne, as it is stated: “He grasps the surface of His throne and spreads His cloud over it” (Job 26:9); the Holy One blessed be He spread [His cloud] and protected him. He said: “Rise, descend quickly from here” (Deuteronomy 9:12). [Moses] said: ‘I am afraid.’ Come and see how potent iniquities are. In the past he had overcome them, but now he feared them. (In the past Moses had disputed with and overcome the angels, but now he was afraid of them (see Maharzu). ) “For I was in dread due to the wrath and the fury,” five angels of destruction were there: Wrath, fury, anger, destruction, and annihilation. At that moment, the three patriarchs came, and overcame three of them. Wrath and fury remained. Moses said: ‘Master of the universe, please, arise from Your Throne of Glory and overcome one, and I [will overcome] one,’ as it is stated: “Arise, Lord, in Your wrath” (Psalms 7:7). (This is understood to mean: ‘Arise, Lord, and hold back Your wrath’ – i.e. the angel of wrath, one of the angels of destruction that remained. ) And I will overcome fury, as it is stated: “He said to destroy them, had it not been for Moses, His chosen one, who stood before Him in the breach to turn back His fury” (Psalms 106:23). Immediately, the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘Descend, it is a demotion for you.’ He said to Him: ‘Why?’ [God said:] “For your people…have acted corruptly” (Exodus 32:7). Moses said to Him: ‘Now You are calling them my people; they are only Your people. “Relent from Your enflamed wrath and reconsider the evil for Your people”’ (Exodus 32:12). Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai said: Moses did not move from prayer until the Holy One blessed be He called them His people, as it is stated: “The Lord reconsidered the evil that He had spoken of doing to His people” (Exodus 32:14). The Holy One blessed be He said to Moses: ‘In this world, because the evil inclination is in them, they craft idols. But in the future, I will uproot the evil inclination from within them and I will grant them a heart of flesh,’ just as it says: “I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26).

“Like the tents of Kedar,” just as the tents of Kedar appear externally to be ugly, black, and in tatters, but internally they are gems and pearls, so too Torah scholars, even though they appear ugly and black in this world, internally there is Torah in them, Bible, Mishna, Midrash, halakhot, Talmud, Tosefta, and aggada. If so, just as tents of Kedar do not require laundering, perhaps the same is true of Israel; the verse states: “Like the curtains of Solomon”—just as these curtains of Solomon are soiled and laundered, and are again soiled and laundered, so, too, Israel, even though they are soiled with sins all the days of the year, Yom Kippur arrives and atones for them, as it is stated: “For on this day He will atone for you” (Leviticus 16:30), and it is written: “If your sins will be like scarlet, they will be whitened as snow; if they will be reddened like crimson, they will be like wool” (Isaiah 1:18). If so, just as the tents of Kedar are moved from place to place, perhaps the same is true of Israel. The verse states: “Like the curtains of Solomon [Shelomo],” like the curtains (The heavens.) of the One [of Whom it may be stated] that the peace is His, the One Who spoke and the world came into being, that from the moment He spread them, they did not move from their place. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught: “A tent that will not be displaced [yatzan]” (Isaiah 33:20); it will not emerge [yetze] and will not move [yanua]. (Yatzan is an acronym of yetze and yanua.) Just as the tents of Kedar are not subject to the yoke of any creature, (The reference is to nomads who live in the wilderness.) so too, Israel, in the future, will not be subject to the yoke of any creature. Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: “I led you upright” (Leviticus 26:13); with an upright stature, without fear of any creature. (Although the verse cited is stated regarding the exodus from Egypt, it is understood as also alluding to the future redemption.) Rabbi Yudan said: Like Joseph; just as Joseph was sold to the tents of Kedar, as it is stated: “They sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites… [and they brought Joseph to Egypt]” (Genesis 37:28), and he then purchased his purchasers, as it is stated: “Joseph purchased all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 47:20), so too Israel: “They will be captors of their captors” (Isaiah 14:2).

משכו וקחו לכם, “draw forth or purchase for yourselves.” A Midrash writes that “as a result of your drawing forth the lamb to perform My commandment, I (G’d) in turn will draw forth your enemies to the Sea of Reeds and drown them therein. The same merit will also result (eventually) in My drowning the army of Siserah in the river Kishon by drawing them forth to their destruction.” (Judges 4,7). An alternate approach: Seeing that the descent of your forefathers to Egypt was set in motion by משיכה, i.e. (Genesis 37,28) “they (the Midianites) drew forth and pulled up Joseph from the pit” and it has been said concerning them (Isaiah 5,18) “ah, those who haul sins with cords of falsehood,” the punishment when it comes was described by using the same verb, i.e. (Isaiah, Nechemyah 9,30) ותמשוך עליהם שנים רבות....ותתנם ביד עמי הארצות, “You dragged on within them (bore with them) for many years.....so You delivered them into the hands of the peoples of the land.” On the one hand, Israel has been called עם ממושך וממורט, “a people thrust forth and away” when they are sinful, (Isaiah 18,2) whereas when they return in penitence they are described as משכני אחריך נרוצה, ”draw me after You, let us run” (Song of Songs 1,4). We find the verb משך applied to the Jewish people also in Hoseah 11,4: בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה, “I drew them with human ties, with cords of love.”

The reason the Torah inserted this prohibition here, in between the prohibitions of hitting and cursing one's parents, is to magnify the sin and give it the level of severity of those transgressions. In the Ten Commandments the prohibition to kidnap has also been inserted between the sin of adultery and that of false testimony for similar reasons. Had the Torah mentioned that offense only at the end we would have thought that this is a relatively less serious offense than striking father or mother or cursing them. On the other hand, the Torah was unable to position the law against kidnapping earlier as it had already commenced with the penalties about murder in verse 12. This had to be followed by the law against striking father or mother. The severity of kidnapping is best demonstrated in that the brothers who had kidnapped Joseph had not been punished until more than 1000 years later when the “Ten Martyrs” died at the hands of the Romans in order to finally expiate for that sin. I have already explained the reason that the Torah repeats the words מות תמות in order to hint at death in the terrestrial as well as the celestial regions (see commentary on Gen. 37:28, 44:17).

Having established all this we can now address the amount of silver Haman offered to pay King Ahasverus in exchange for permission to destroy the Jews in his kingdom. Seeing that he offered 10.000 talents of silver, this was equivalent to 50 shekel for every Jew assuming that there had been 600.000 Jews at the time. The number 50 shekel is the maximum amount per adult male between the age of 20 and 60 prescribed by the Torah (Leviticus 27,3) that someone “donating” his own equivalent to G’d has to give to the Temple treasury. Another way of understanding why Haman picked on this amount of silver may be that when the Israelites sold their brother Joseph and received 20 pieces of silver in exchange, i.e. an amount of 5 shekel, or half a shekel each, and their guilt had not yet been atoned, he concluded that in exchange for the amount he offered he could legally make all the Jews his slaves (again by assuming that there were a total of 600.000 Jews). He felt certain that he would succeed seeing that the brothers had never been punished by G’d for selling Joseph into slavery. He presumably reasoned similar to what we have been told in Midrash Tehillim 10 that because the brothers sat down to eat their meal (Genesis 37,28) after throwing Joseph into the pit but before selling him, acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had just occurred, G’d was so angry that He said: “seeing you have sold your brother as a result of feasting, your descendants will be sold as a result of their having feasted (participating in the banquet given by King Ahasverus).” This is why the Book of Esther makes such a point of telling us that the King and Haman sat down to a feast after having concluded the deal in which Haman acquired authority to do to the Jews whatever he wanted.

SEE YE THAT EVIL IS BEFORE YOUR FACE. “The intent of the verse is as the Targum [Onkelos] explained it.” Thus the language of Rashi. Now how commendable it would have been if Rashi had written out [the text of Onkelos he referred to], since there are variant texts of this Targum! In some texts, it is written: “See, the evil you are about to do is set against you.” (This is not the text found in our version of Targum Onkelos. Ramban will later mention two other variants of Onkelos’ text here. See Note 34 for the text found in our version of the Targum.) According to this text, it appears that Onkelos intended to explain: “the evil you are contemplating to do is set before you, bearing witness against you that it is your desire to escape altogether.” This is similar to the verse, And set two men, base fellows, before him [Naboth], and let them bear witness against him, saying, etc. (I Kings 21:10.) It is also similar to [the expressions]: And they sat down to eat bread, (Genesis 30:25.) which the Targum translates v’istacharu (and they sat down), [the same as the term istacharat that appears to be in the Targum here]; Arise, I pray thee, sit, (Ibid., 27:19.) which the Targum translates istachar (sit). And there are versions of [Targum Onkelos] in which it is written: “will turn against yourself.” (This text appears in our version of Targum Onkelos.) The purport thereof is thus: “Behold, this evil you are about to do is destined to turn against you, for it will pass upon you.” This is similar to the expression, So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel pass from tribe to tribe, (Numbers 36:7.) which the Targum translates: lo tistachar (not pass), [similar to the Targum here, l’istachro]. This explanation finds authority in the Midrash of the Sages, who said in Eileh Shemoth Rabbah: (Shemoth Rabbah 13:5.) “[Pharaoh said]: ‘It is the custom of young men and the elders to offer sacrifice, but is it the custom of children and the little ones to do so? He who says so intends only to escape. See that which you want to do, namely to escape, will turn against you, that you will not go forth from here,’” a kind of measure for measure. And I have found yet another version in the Targum: “your countenance does not bear witness to the absence of this evil,” meaning that “your countenance does not bear witness to the removal of the evil in your hearts. On the contrary, the show of your countenance bears witness against you.” In line with the plain meaning of Scripture, [the intent of the verse is to be understood as follows]: “Know that evil is before you, ready and imminent to come upon you from me, for I will requite you evil when I see that you want to escape.”

AND THE MAN CAME INTO THE HOUSE. Eliezer is the man who entered the house. And he ungirded the camels — this refers to Laban who acted ethically towards his guests, unharnessed their camels and gave them straw and fodder, and he also gave water to wash the feet of Eliezer and the feet of the men that were with him. It must refer to Laban for it would be unlikely that it was Eliezer who gave water to wash his own feet and those of his men. A similar case is the verse, And there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit. (Further, 37:28.) The words, and they drew, refer back to the brothers of Joseph mentioned in the preceding verse, and not to the Midianites. And so in the verse, Then said Ziba unto the king [David]: According to all that my lord the king commandeth his servant, so shall thy servant do; but Mephibosheth eateth at my table as one of the king’s sons. (II Samuel 9:11.) [The concluding words, but Mephibosheth eateth], are the words of David and not Ziba. There are many such verses. Now the purport of the expression, and he ungirded the camels, is that he unloosened the bands on their necks, as it was customary to lead them knotted, or perhaps they travelled with saddles girded upon them, just as is expressed in the verses: Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast himself as he that putteth it off, (I Kings 20:11.) Loose thyself from the band of thy neck. (Isaiah 52:2.) Now Rashi wrote, “He removed their muzzles for he had closed their mouths so that they might not graze in other peoples’ fields.” And in the words of Bereshith Rabbah, (60:1.) “He removed their muzzles. Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yirmiyah asked Rabbi Chiya the son of Rabbi Aba, ‘Were not the camels of our father Abraham like the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir, (A Sage of the Tannaitic period. He was a son-in-law of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai. He was celebrated for his great piety; even his ass refused to eat untithed corn.) etc.?’” This question is intended to contradict [the interpretation which maintains that the ungirding refers to] the removing of the muzzles for it is impossible that the piety in the house of Rabbi Pinchas been Ya’ir should have been greater than that in the house of our father Abraham, and just as the ass of Rabbi Pinchas ben Ya’ir did not have to be guarded against eating things which its master was forbidden to feet it, all the more so were the camels of our father Abraham. There was thus no need to muzzle them for no injustice befalleth the righteous. (Proverbs 12:21.)

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.

It is written (Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.) : This they shall give, everybody who violated the Commandments. Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, because they sinned (Making the Golden Calf after 12 noon, Babli Šabbat89a, summarized by Rashi, Ex. 32:1.) in the middle of the day they shall give half a sheqel; but the other said, because they sinned in the sixth hour they shall give half a sheqel; which is worth six grams (An Aramaic plural of Greek γράμμα, τό, “gram, scruple (as weight)”. One scruple is two oboloi, a third of a denar, approximately 1.2 metric grams, used here as name of a silver coin.) . Rebbi Joshua the son of Rebbi Neḥemiah in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Because they transgressed the Ten Commandments, each of them shall give ten gerah (Ex. 30:13, reading הַפְּקוּדִים “the census” as Mishnaic Hebrew הַפִּקּוּדִים “the Commandments”.) . Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Levi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver; each of them shall redeem his firstborn with twenty pieces of silver (Num. 3:47. The firstborn is redeemed by 5 sheqalim. Since it is held that the sheqel in the Torah is equal to a Roman tetradrachma, Qiddušin1:3 Note 339, 5 sheqalim are 20 denarii. The generic expression “pieces of silver” is taken to mean the most common silver coin, the denar. The homily is mentioned as introduction to the following one.) . Rebbi Phineas in the name of Rebbi Levi: Because they sold Rachel’s firstborn for twenty pieces of silver and each of them received a minted coin (In this context meaning the silver didrachma.) (Since Joseph was sold by 10 of his brothers. The formulation of the homily shows that in later Amoraic times the word sheqel had lost its meaning denoting either a standard weight or a standard coin but became the label of a religious obligation.) , each of them shall give a minted coin as his sheqel.

‘This is the way [conducive to] the study of the Torah: a morsel of bread with salt thou shalt eat.’ (Cf. Sanh. 111a (Sonc. ed., p. 762).) [Rab] saw [R. Kahana] indulging himself (He was dressing his hair instead of attending to his studies.) and asked him, ‘Do you not know of the verse, (Or, do you not accept the teaching?) Neither is it found in the land of the living (Job 28, 13.) [which means that] the Torah will not be found in one who attends to his needs [instead of studying it constantly]?’ He replied, ‘It refers to [abstention from pleasant things] which enter the body, but does it refer also to such matters?’ (As dressing one’s hair.) [Rab] said to him, ‘Has it not been taught: (Ber. 57b (Sonc. ed., p. 356).) Three things enter the body without its deriving any benefit therefrom, viz. melilot, (A kind of clover.) date-berries and unripe dates; three things do not enter the body but it derives benefit therefrom, viz. washing, anointing and regular motions?’ He asked him, ‘Does, then, the study of the Torah entail affliction?’ He replied, ‘Yes, for it is written, It is good for me that I have been afficted, in order that I might learn Thy statutes. (Ps. 119, 71.) Furthermore, is [Torah] found [in all others] except those [who attend to their wants]? But has it not been taught: (‘Erub. 55a (Sonc. ed., p. 384).) It is not in heaven (Deut. 30, 12.) [which means that] Torah will not be found with those who exalt their knowledge, Neither is it beyond the sea [which means that] it will not be found among merchants, traders and sailors. With these Torah is not found but craftiness is found. And whence do you know that beyond [‘eber] the sea refers to merchants? For it is written, And there passed by [wayya‘abru], Midianites, merchantmen’. (Gen. 37, 28. The root of the verb passed is the same as of ‘eber, ‘beyond’, and the inference is drawn that the Midianites were merchants who came from beyond the sea.) ‘Do not seek greatness for yourself’: so that you should not say, ‘Behold, I study the Torah and what a great man I am!’ Should you do so, the consequence will be that you will occupy yourself with the Torah not for its own sake.

And Gideon said to them, “I have a request to make of you: Each of you give me the earring you received as booty.” (The Midianites (The Midianites Heb. “They.” The author explains that the Midianites wore earrings like the Ishmaelites, who were better known to his contemporaries.) had golden earrings, for they were Ishmaelites.)

Midianite merchants passed by. They [the brothers] pulled Yoseif up from the pit and sold Yoseif to the Yishmaelites [Arabs] for twenty pieces of silver. They brought Yoseif to Egypt.

And the Midianite men, masters of business, passed by; and they drew and brought up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Arabians for twenty mahin of silver; and they bought sandals of them. And they brought Joseph to Mizraim.

וישב ראובן אל הבור, “when Reuven returned to the pit, etc.” Rashi, in answer to the question we should have asked about where Reuven was in the interval, answers that he had been preoccupied with trying through fasting and wearing sackcloth, to obtain forgiveness for his indiscretion in removing evidence of Bilhah sleeping with his father. [one of two explanations which Rashi suggests, the more likely correct one. Ed.] This explanation is difficult, seeing that the Talmud in tractate Makkot folio 11, arrives at the conclusion that Yehudah had been the first person ever to have done real penance by admitting his sin publicly, so that his brother learned from him when admitting being the father of the fetus his daughter-in-law Tamar was carrying in her womb. (Genesis 38,26) From that statement it is clear that at this stage Reuven had not felt the need to do penance. He did so only after Yehudah had set the example, which clearly had been some time after the sale of Joseph. Possibly, in order to solve this problem, perhaps the Talmud meant that until Yehudah had confessed publicly, Reuven had only done penance in the privacy his own house. He had been wearing sackcloth in his house already at this point.

וישב ראובן אל הבור, Reuben returned to the pit, etc. What was Reuben's argument when he complained to the brothers ואני אנה אני בא, "where shall I go?" Would Joseph not have been lost even if his own suggestion to throw him into a pit had been carried out? After all, the Torah itself testified that Reuben had never told his brothers that he intended to save Joseph and to restore him to his father! When Yehudah said to the other brothers: "what profit is there in killing our brother, etc," does this not prove that Joseph's remaining in the pit was meant to result in his death? How then could Reuben complain to his brothers?

Actually, Reuben argued that inasmuch as he was the oldest, his father would charge him with leading the search for the missing Joseph from one end of the earth to the other. If Joseph had remained in the pit, he would have brought Joseph's remains to his father and explained to him that wild beasts had killed him. This would have been the end of his involvement. Now he could not do this. This is why he said: "where shall I go?" As a result the brothers hit on the idea of slaughtering a male goat and dipping Joseph's tunic in its blood, etc. By returning the tattered and blood-soaked remains of Joseph's striped coat they made it unnecessary for Reuben to start a search for Joseph.

וישב, he returned from wherever he had gone to his brothers, going back to the pit to see if he could rescue Joseph without his brothers finding out, and to return him to his father. There is a discussion in Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 as to where Reuven had been in the interval. According to some, it had been his turn to attend to the needs of his father, whereas according to Rabbi Eliezer he was engaged in doing penance, etc., for having slept with Bilhah, his father’s concubine.

וישב ראובן AND REUBEN RETURNED — When he (Joseph) was sold he had not been present, for it was his day (his turn) to go to attend to his father (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Another explanation is: he had not sat with them at the meal because he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fast in penitence for having disturbed his father’s couch (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

He was not present when he was sold, for his day had arrived to go and attend to his father. [You might ask:] What forced Rashi to say this? Perhaps he went to take care of business. And the same [question can be asked] according to the alternate explanation, that “he was occupied with his sack-cloth and fasting.” The answer is: If he had gone for mundane business, how was he allowed to leave? He knew his brothers wanted to kill Yoseif. Why did he not fear they would kill Yoseif when he left? Perforce, he went for a mitzvah, as his day had arrived, etc. There is a question [on the first explanation]: Why does it say he “returned” (וישב)? It should say he “came.” Therefore Rashi brings the alternate explanation, [according to which וישב is] an expression of repentance (תשובה). And the second explanation is insufficient on its own, as he should have waited for another day [to do repentance], because of [the danger to] Yoseif. Thus Rashi explains that “his day had arrived...” and he could not delay. (Maharshal)

Another explanation: He was occupied with his sack-cloth... Rashi deduces this because it is written here, “Reuvein returned to the pit,” and it says, “Mordechai returned to the king’s gate wearing sack-cloth” (Esther 6:12). Just as “returned” over there refers to sack-cloth and fasting, so too here. Reuvein must have done his repentance secretly, and thus he was absent at the time of Yoseif’s sale. Otherwise it would contradict Rashi’s explanation of וזאת ליהודה (Devarim 33:7), that Yehudah’s confession over the incident with Tamar was what influenced Reuvein to confess and repent over the incident with Bilhah. Therefore it must be that Reuvein first repented secretly and later he did so publicly.

Reuben returned to the pit. Evidently, Reuben was not present at the time of the sale. And behold, Joseph was not in the pit; he rent his garments due to his concern regarding Joseph’s fate.

וישב ראובן, “Reuven returned;” According to Rashi, Reuven reverted to wearing sackcloth and observing fasts as penitence over his indiscretion with Bilhah, even though he had not made a public confession until after he had heard his brother Yehudah publicly confess his sin against Tamar. (Genesis 38,26)

ויקרע את בגדיו, “he rent his outer garments.” When his father heard about Joseph’s apparent death, the Torah describes the rending of his garments with the words ויקרע שמלותיו, “he rent his (under)garments.” When mourning parents or children, one rends all of one’s clothing, whereas when mourning siblings one only rends outer garments. The word שמלה appears as covering for one’s skin” (Exodus 22,26)

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

[9] "If they say, 'Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood; let us lurk secretly for the innocent without cause'" - These are the brothers of Joseph, who were lurking and saying, 'When will the end come, and we will kill him?' And when he came to them, they began to say to one another, 'This is the hour; this is the season,' and the Divine Presence (Shechinah) was jesting and saying, 'Woe to them for the blood of this righteous one.' Therefore, it is said, "We will lurk secretly for the innocent without cause." And of them all, none wanted to save him except Reuben, as it is said, "Reuben heard, and he saved him from their hand." He said to them, 'Come, and I will give you advice,' They said to him, 'What advice are you giving us?' He said to them, 'Let us throw him into the pit while he is alive, and our hand will not be upon him,' From where [do we learn this]? As it is stated: (Proverbs 1:12): "We will swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down into the pit" - that he went down to the pit in his innocence, and he did not know what they were going to do to him. Rabbi Levi ben Zavdai said: "Who lowered [Joseph] into the pit from among all his brothers? You must say it was Simeon and Levi, as it is said (Genesis 49:6), 'Into their council let my soul not enter.' But Reuben intended to save him and return him to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:22), 'That he might save him from their hand, to restore him to his father.' (Genesis 37:29): 'And Reuben returned to the pit' - where was he? Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagreed]: Rabbi Judah said, 'The burden of the household was thrust upon him, and as soon as he was free from his burden, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him. This is the meaning of "And Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he tore his clothes."' Rabbi Nehemiah said, 'He was occupied in his sackcloth and fasting over the incident that occurred, and he did not turn [from it], and as soon as he was free from his sackcloth and fasting, he came and looked into the pit and did not find him, as it says "And Reuben returned to the pit, etc." ' Not only that, but once they sold him, the Divine Presence (Shechinah) mocked them and said to them (Isaiah 55:8), 'For my thoughts are not your thoughts, etc.,' not with the thought that you think, 'nor your ways my ways,' and not in the way that you say, for if there were not a decree from before Me, your counsel would be nothing. (Proverbs 1:13): 'All precious substance shall we find, our houses shall be filled with spoil' - this is the sale of Joseph, who was a precious son to his father, as it is said (Genesis 37:3), 'For he was the son of his old age,' he was found to sustain them, as it is written (Genesis 45:5), 'For God sent me before you to preserve life.' 'Our houses shall be filled with spoil' - that they filled their houses with silver and gold from Joseph's treasures. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: The ten martyrs were drawn [to their deaths] only by the sin of selling Joseph. Rabbi Avin said: You must say that ten were exacted from every generation, and still, that sin persists. (Proverbs 1:14): 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - when Joseph sat down, he took the key and was calling out: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Dan and Naphtali - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; Gad and Asher - they are sons of one mother, let them come and sit; and he went back and hit with the key and said: Benjamin is an orphan, and I am an orphan, it is fitting for an orphan to sit with an orphan, 'One purse shall be ours' - for they all ate at one table at the banquet. How did he do it? He gave each one one portion, and to Benjamin five portions, how? He took his portion, and Benjamin's portion, and Ephraim's portion, and Manasseh's portion, and the portion of Asenath, Joseph's wife, and gave it to Benjamin, as it is said (Genesis 43:34): 'And he took and sent portions to them from before him, but Benjamin's portion was five times as much as any of theirs, and they drank and were merry with him.' Rabbi Shmuelai said in the name of Rabbi Isaac from Magdala: From the day that Joseph separated from his brothers he did not taste the taste of wine until that day, as it is written (Genesis 49:26), 'And the crown of the head of his brothers' Nazirite.' Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina said: They also did not taste the taste of wine, as it is said, 'And they drank and were merry with him.' Another explanation, 'Your lot shall be cast among us' - this is the Torah, which was the lot of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and given to Israel; 'One purse shall be ours' - at the time when they stood at Mount Sinai and said (Exodus 24:7), 'All that the Lord has spoken we will do and we will hear.'"

וזאת ליהודה, “and this for Yehudah;” he meant that his blessing that Reuven should not suffer casualties in battle, should also apply to the men of military age of the tribe of Yehudah;At this point Rashi said (based on the Talmud tractate Sotah folio 7) that Moses gave the credit for Reuven’s having done penitence to how Yehudah had demeaned himself publicly when admitting that his daughterinlaw had become pregnant by him. (Genesis 38,26) In Genesis 37,29, we read about Reuven being mortified when Joseph was no longer in the pit the brothers had thrown him into. Although he had not even been present when Joseph was sold, he held himself responsible for not staying around at that time. Yehudah, though admitting his paternity of his daughterinlaw’s Tamar’s babies did not do so until challenged. Until Yehudah admitted his guilt publicly, Reuven had done so only privately; (Genesis 37,29). After hearing of Yehudah’s confession, he too admitted his defiling his father’s couch openly.

ואת בצר במדבר, “and Betzer in the desert.” This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit;” he referred to someone who had incurred this guilt inadvertently, or even in self defense, i.e. accidentally. After Reuven (Genesis 37,29) found the pit in which he had left Joseph empty, i.e. he had to assume that he had been the cause of Joseph’s death; he supposedly fled to that town in the desert, later on in the territory of Reuven on the east bank of the Jordan.

בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”

Moshe said, “Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? Yehudah, etc.” According to this, Now this for Yehudah is an expression of surprise. [I.e., does Yehudah deserve that his bones roll in the coffin?!]. When Rashi explains, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s confession? he means, Who was responsible for Reuvein’s public confession? because Reuvein had confessed in private beforehand, as Rashi explained earlier in parshas Vayeishev (Bereishis 37:29), that [Reuvein] was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc., which was before the incident of Tamar and Yehudah. This indicates that Reuvein had already confessed. Perforce we must say that he was occupied with his sack-cloth, etc. in private. But after Yehudah had confessed, he was occupied with his sack-cloth even in public. So too answer Tosefos in Perek Hachovel (Bava Kamma 92a).

They sat down to a meal; looking up, they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead.…Judah said to his brothers, “What do we gain by killing our brother and covering up his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites.”…They pulled Joseph up out of the pit and sold him to the Ishmaelites.…Reuben returned to the pit and behold! – Joseph was not in the pit! Genesis 37:25–29

ברך ה' חילו, “Bless, O Hashem its resources, etc.” According to Nachmanides this is a plea by Moses to Hashem to grant the tribe of Levi plenty of human resources, seeing that in fulfilling their tasks they put their lives at risk if they make any of many possible mistakes which result in such people forfeiting their lives. Compare Numbers 4,18 “Do not let the tribe of the Kehatites be cut off from the rest of the tribe of Levi.” Onkelos translates חילו as “its material resources,” using Genesis 37,29 and Number 31,9 as his models. In both those verses the expression ואת כל חילם means: “all their physical possessions.” The verse is an appendix to ישימו קטורה באפך in the previous verse, which describes the material possession of man most closely related to a spiritual asset, i.e. the fragrance of the incense burned on the Altar.

Reuvein returned to the pit, but behold, Yoseif was not in the pit. He [then] tore his clothes [in grief.]

And Reuben returned to the pit; for he had not been with them to assist when they sold him, because he had sat fasting on account that he had confounded the couch of his father; and he had gone and sat among the hills, that he might return to the pit and bring him up for his father, if haply he might avert his anger. But when he had returned, and looked, and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit, he rent his clothes,

ואני אנה אני בא, “as for me in what terrible situation have I gotten myself into?” Why was Reuven more concerned and afraid than the other brothers? On the contrary, the brother who should have been the one most afraid was Yehudah, who had acted as the brothers’ leader until that time! We must therefore say that he was more concerned because his father had treated Joseph as his firstborn, and he, his father’s biological firstborn could have been accused as being negligent in looking after him due to feelings of jealousy. In addition, he had already been guilty of an indiscretion in Bilhah’s bedroom, which had shown his father that he felt aggrieved about his father having favoured Rachel and her children. Rashi already commented concerning the tales Joseph had been telling to his father, all putting the sons of Leah in a bad light.

AND AS FOR ME, WHITHER SHALL I GO? Ani (I) is used twice in this clause (The Hebrew literally reads: And I, whither shall I go.) even though one ani would have sufficed. (Scripture could have read: and whither shall I go.) The latter is in keeping with Hebrew style.

וישב, he did not know that the brothers had sold him but thought that he had been stolen from the pit.

אנה אני בא!, what did I came to the pit for!

אנה אני בא WHITHER SHALL I GO? — Whither can I flee from my father’s grief?

אנה אני בא, nicht אלך, nicht: wohin soll ich mich mit meinem Schmerze flüchten! Dazu liegt ja auch eigentlich kein Motiv vor. Er war ja nicht allein mit seinem Schmerze, hatte ja eine ganze Familie zu Schmerzensgenossen. בא heißt ja auch wesentlich: in einen heimischen Ort sich begeben, in den man hingehört (verwandt mit פֺא dem gewöhnlichen [Job 38, 11] פֺה, Ausdruck des Ortes, wohin ein Gegenstand gehört: hier; auch פֶה, Mund, die Mündung, die sich öffnet, um das Hineingehörige aufzunehmen). Es drücken daher diese Worte vielmehr ein Scham- oder Reuegefühl aus, das Gefühl eines zu erwartenden begründeten oder unbegründeten Vorwurfes. Ich werde keine Stätte haben, wo ich werde ruhig sein, wo ich werde meine Augen aufschlagen können, alle Welt wird mich meiden. Was können nun die Motive zu einem solchen Gefühle gewesen sein? Möglich ganz einfach der Grund, daß er nicht mit der nötigen Energie gegen das Verfahren aufzutreten angefangen. Er hatte die מצוה begonnen, ohne sie zu vollenden. Woher aber der Mangel dieser Energie, da er doch der älteste war? Vielleicht, weil er ja auch nicht rein von Makel gewesen, ihn noch das frische Bewusstsein einer Verirrung drückte. Das Bewusstsein der eigenen Schwäche raubte ihm die Kraft zu entschiedenerem Auftreten.

Es kann jedoch noch ein anderes zu Grunde gelegen haben. Es war ja das Gefühl der Angst, das die Brüder zu dem Verbrechen getrieben, die Furcht, in der Selbständigkeit von Josef überragt zu werden. Dieses Gefühl hätte auf natürlichem Wege niemanden mehr als Reuben erfüllen müssen. Es waren ja in Jakobs Hause zwei Erstgeborne, Reuben und Josef, und zwar war Josef von der eigentlich beabsichtigten Frau. Der Verdacht musste also bei dieser Tat hinsichtlich der Motive zunächst auf Reuben fallen. Deshalb hatte er sich ganz ferngehalten, deshalb fürchtete er, daß nun ein jeder den Stein zuerst auf ihn werfen werde. Der Erfolg hat ja auch diese Bedenken scheinbar gerechtfertigt. Die Erstgeburt ward wirklich Reuben genommen und auf Josef übertragen.

Where can I flee from my father’s grief? [Rashi knows it means this] because otherwise, would the boy not being there cause a lack of space for Reuvein, leaving him nowhere to flee? Perforce, it means: since the boy is not there, I must flee from my father’s grief, and where can I flee?

He returned to his brothers, and said: The boy is not there; and I, where do I go? What will happen to me? As the oldest brother, Reuben felt that the responsibility for Joseph rested on his shoulders.

“What am I to do” [37:30]. Reuben came to the pit and did not find Joseph. He tore his clothes and said: I am the oldest; our father will hang it all on me. Hizkuni writes: Reuben was afraid that his father would say: certainly you Reuben killed him because the birthright was taken away from you and was given to Joseph. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:30.) Where was Reuben that day when the brothers sold Joseph? The explanation is that he was with Jacob, since every day one had to serve his father. He repented on that day that he had disturbed his father’s bed. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:29.)

In Genesis 44,17, Joseph said to his brothers: ואתם עלו לשלום אל אביכם, "As for you, go up in peace to your father." The word אתם, in that connection was used advisedly. Joseph meant that the brothers themselves could come to their Father in Heaven safely, i.e. they would not in this world suffer the execution as kidnappers who sell their prey. On a future occasion, however, their re-incarnates would have to pay for the crime with their lives. The Ten Martyrs mentioned were the ones who had to pay with their lives for that sin which had gone unpunished for so long. The allusion in the verse just quoted serves some Kabbalists as the reason why Reuben, who had not been a party to the sale of Joseph, was included among those who were executed for the crime. His sin had been of a different nature, namely the incident described in Genesis 35, 22, involving Bilhah. Reuben's own words provide us with a hint of this when he said after discovering that Joseph had been removed from the pit (37, 30): ואני, אנה אני בא, "Where can I go to?" Rabbi Abraham Saba in his Tzror Hamor comments on this that the letters in the words and אני and אנה are the respective first letters of א-ל נקמות י-ה-ו-ה נקמות הופיע, "G–d of retribution, Lord, G–d of retribution, appear!" (Psalms 94, 1) The reincarnations of Joseph and Benjamin were not among the Ten Martyrs described.

‘LU’ (IF) THOU WILT HEAR ME. This is equivalent to saying, “If you, if you will hear me,” and the purport thereof is like, “if you, if you would hear me,” the redundancy being for the purpose of emphasizing the matter. Similar cases are found in these verses: Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; (Judges 4:18.) Art thou any better, better than Balak? (Ibid., 11:25.) And to speak against him, saying; (II Chronicles 32:17.) And as for me, whither shall I go?; (Further, 37:30.) And I turned myself; (Ecclesiastes 2:12.) And I saw myself; (Ibid., Verse 13.) Seeing all the congregation are all holy. (Numbers 16:3.) All these are examples of expressions of synonimity. In my opinion, this is also the case in the verse, If from a thread even to a sandal tie, if I take (anything that is thine), (Above, 14:23. Here too, there is a redundant “if.”) which is equivalent to saying, “If, from a thread even to a sandal tie, I take anything that is yours.” It may be that [in the verse here before us the meaning is], “If you are as you have said.” that is, if you are speaking what is in your heart concerning the matter, and if you will listen to me and consummate the sale. A similar usage of a missing word is found in the verse, And their brethren said unto them, What are ye? (Judges 18:8.) [which means, “What are you saying?”] In my opinion, a similar case of such usage is the verse, Wherefore am I? (Further, 25:2. See also Ramban there.) [meaning, “Wherefore am I in the world?”] Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated here, “if you will do me a favor,” meaning, “if you will do my will as you have said.”

Reubens Verhältnis zu den Brüdern, wie er in dieser Begebenheit auftritt, dürfte rätselhaft erscheinen. Er scheint nur zufällig bei ihnen zu sein, da er ja sich sehr bald wieder von ihnen entfernt haben muss, und bei der eigentlichen Entwicklung gar nicht gegenwärtig war. Ob er überhaupt als בכור an den gewöhnlichen Tagesbeschäftigungen nicht Teil zu nehmen hatte, ob er schon im allgemeinen von ihren Ansichten über Josef differierte und daher an den Absichten und Beratungen, die sie nach Sichem geführt, nicht teilnehmen wollte, dürfte zweifelhaft sein. Wir werden noch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 37: 30. wieder darauf zurückkommen. — לא נכנו נפש ist ganz positiv. Einen solchen Gedanken, wie ihr eben angeregt, werden wir nicht ausführen. Ich, als der ältere Bruder, leide das nicht. Indem V. 22 nochmals seine Rede eingeleitet wird, scheint es erst Diskussion gegeben zu haben, worauf er dann, um sie zu beschwichtigen, mit dem andern Vorschlag hervortrat.

(Bereshit 37:29–30)

He returned to his brothers and said, The boy is not there; and I—where can I go.

and returned to his brethren, and said, The youth is not; and I,whither shall I go, and how shall I see the look of my father's face?

שעיר עזים, “a male goat; ”according to Rashi they chose this animal as its blood most closely resembles the colour of human blood. When we read in the Talmud Gittin, folio 57, where the Babylonian general Nebuzaradan is reported of having tried to compare the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Jews he had slain in Jerusalem to that of the prophet of the prophet Zecharyah which had not stopped bubbling after having been stoned inside the Temple (he was also a priest) for having rebuked King Joash (about 150 years before the Temple was destroyed) and having failed to prove that that blood was human blood, we must assume that this was due to Zecharyah’s blood having become contaminated during all those years.

וישחטו שעיר עזים, they said that its blood resembled the colour of human blood.

שעיר עזים A KID OF THE GOATS — its blood resembles that of a human being (Genesis Rabbah 84:19).

הַכֻּתֹּנֶת THE COAT — This is the form of the noun in the absolute state, but when it is in the construct state — as e.g., Joseph’s coat”, “the coat of many colours”, “the coat of linen”, — it is punctuated as כְּתֹנֶת.

Selling one’s own brother is an especially egregious act. By Torah law, kidnapping and selling any member of Israel into slavery, let alone one’s relative, is a capital offense. The brothers therefore sought to prepare a cover story for Joseph’s disappearance: They took Joseph’s tunic, slaughtered a goat, whose blood resembles human blood, and dipped the tunic in the blood of the goat.

“They dipped the tunic in blood” [37:31]. The brothers took a kid and slaughtered it. They tore the tunic and smeared it with blood, so that one should think that a wild animal tore him apart. Hizkuni writes that the brothers sent the garment with messengers. They were afraid that their father would note that they hated him and would say: you killed him. (Hizkuni, Genesis, 37:32.) Bahya also writes. It must be that the brothers did not go by themselves because it is written, “is it your son’s tunic” [37:32]? The messengers said: do you recognize this tunic, if it is your son’s tunic? If the children had brought the tunic, they would have said: see if this is Joseph’s tunic? (Bahya, Genesis, 37:32.) It is not customary for children to say to their father, is this your son’s?

The Talmud Erchin 67 states that the reason the portion dealing with the priestly garments is written next to the portion dealing with the sacrifices, is to inform us that just as the function of the sacrifices is to obtain atonement, so the function of the priestly garments also is to achieve a degree of atonement for the people. The breastplate atones for errors in application of justice between man and man; the ephod for errors in worship of other deities. The robe, me-il atones for slander, the tunic for bloodshed, the belt for rationalisation of intended licentious behaviour. The pants atone for incestuous conduct, and the headband atones for individual obstinacy vis a vis G-d.

Some problems in the text of our Parshah. 1) Why does the Parshah commence with the word "ve-attah," "and you," instead of simply with the word tzav, command!? 2) Why did the Torah not wait with commanding Aaron to light the menorah until the tabernacle had been built? 3) This whole passage is repeated in Parshat Emor with the exception of the word attah. Why? The Rabbis tell us that the making of these garments and wearing them is the prerequisite to kindling the menorah. Just as the High Priest in Zecharyah 3,4, who had faced the menorah in soiled garments, had to be dressed in clean garments before he could perform his functions,- a reference to the removal of sin,- so the Torah teaches this lesson in our Parshah. We observe in Zecharyah that the High Priest Voshua could not even notice the flame of the golden candelabra until after his garments had been changed. "I have removed your iniquities from you." Obviously, the candelabra had been there before, but Yoshua had to be awakened to its presence. All this teaches that proper study should be preceded by suitable character traits, (the other meaning of the word middah) (1+2) The commandment therefore means "You, who in the future will be instructing the Jewish people to provide the proper fuel, which in turn will be arranged by Aaron and his sons nightly, will need to bring Aaron close to you, appoint him and his sons as priests. It would not be fitting for them to appear michutz laporochet, facing the curtain in the sanctuary in everyday clothing. Therefore, you will make for your brother holy garments, beautiful and impressive, as outlined in the Parshah. Even though the exterior appearance of these garments reflected pomp and ceremony, the inner garments were symbolic of purity and holiness, seeing that they were made of pure white linen. The artisans were to use their G-d given skill and wisdom in their construction, and all those who saw these garments would recognise the message they were meant to convey. The Midrash which compared the sacrifices to the priestly garments needs explaining. Sacrifices were primarily for atonement, whereas the function of the garments is described in the Torah as "le-chavod u-letif-eret," “for splendour and for beauty." (28,40) How then are the two comparable? However, just as the preoccupation with the sacrifices achieves a certain restraint, minimises the chance of such a person committing sins, so study of the deeper significance of these garments helps to remove one's own soiled garments, i.e. one's character imperfections. It spurs the student to garb himself in clean clothing, in innocence. There cannot be any greater atonement than this. Even though the garments reflect acquisition of character traits, as opposed to say the table or candelabra, which represent acquisition of knowledge and understanding, among these garments are also found the breastplate, shoulder plates and the golden headband which are distinct from the remainder of the garments in that the holy name of G-d was engraved upon them. Our sages say that the breastplate is to atone for social injustices committed. Social injustices can occur in four different ways, as mentioned by Moses, Deut. chapter four. The Torah addresses primarily the judges. 1) Do not show favoritism to litigants. 2) Do not give preference to matters involving large sums of money, if the matter involving a smaller amount has come to your attention first. 3) Do not display fear of either litigant. 4) Do not appear to know all the answers, but refer to experts any matter you are not certain about. Concerning point number one, the names of the tribes on the breastplate were arranged in chronological order of their birth, to conform with the commandment "rise in the presence of a senior person." (Leviticus 19,32) We do accord honour to natural birthright. Concerning the matter of not dealing first with litigation of matters involving large sums at the expense of keeping a litigant suing for a smaller sum waiting, the four rows of gems on the breastplate were not arranged in the order of their respective values. Neither were distinctions made in the respective sizes of the twelve gems. All this teaches that all of them are equally important in the eyes of the law. Concerning the fear of certain litigants that a judge might have, the name of G-d was engraved to remind us that "justice is the Lord's." (Deut. 1, 17) Finally, concerning item four, the most common pitfall for all judges, the desire to appear all knowing, the urim vetumim the name of G-d on a parchment embedded in a pocket in the breastplate, was to remind the judge that there is always a last recourse, i.e. revelation of Divine wisdom, which is available if human wisdom has failed to arrive at a valid decision. For the above mentioned reasons, the function of the breastplate to atone for errors in administering social justice, is clear. Our sages have stated that the Ephod, apron, and shoulder plate, atone for idol worship. They quote Hoseah 3,4, "when there will be no Ephod and Teraphim" (idols). We need a source of inspiration. We observe from Judges 18, 17, that Michah had such an Ephod and Teraphim and was therefore elected as the guru of the Danites. The Torah commands that this Ephod be worn on the back of the High Priest, on the lower part of his body. However, it was to be anchored in the two shoulder pieces linked to the breastplate by chains. This was to convey the thought that not all human resources are concentrated in the seat of the reproductive organs, but rather are drawn directly from the seat of the urim ve-tumim, the seat of Divine inspiration. Such inspiration was granted only to Israel by way of prophecy. When viewed in this light, all tendencies to worship idols would be countered effectively. Because the gift of the breastplate and what it stands for represents a special kindness on G-d’s part, David says in Psalms 147, 19, "He issues His words to Jacob, His statutes and rules to Israel. He has not done so for any other nation." Aaron constantly carried the names of the children of Israel to remind G-d of us. The Ephod is symbolic of our gift to G-d by means of which we express that we are aware that we are different from all other nations. The two gems on the shoulder pieces of the Ephod are "as a remembrance to the children of Israel,” a reminder to us of His relationship with us. Breastplate and Ephod relate to one another in a manner similar to that described by Moses in Deut. 26,17-18 "You have avouched G-d this day.. and G-d has avouched you this day." This is followed by the statement of our being a nation of special treasure to the Lord. Because of the aforesaid, it is fitting that the Ephod had to be made first, in accordance with the principle (Psalms 85, 12 ) "truth sprouts forth from earth," i.e. we first have to do our part. After that "righteousness will come down from the heavens." (ibid.) The me-il, robe, was to atone for slander, wicked use of the tongue. Several quotations throughout the Bible indicate that this robe was a type of garment worn only by superior people, people who were known to be such. Samuel I 28, 14, shows that Saul who had previously met the prophet Samuel was convinced it was he as soon as he saw a person wearing such a robe. Similarly, Job, when insisting on his own righteousness, refers to it as worn "like a robe." (Job 29, 14) So we have G-d commanding that Aaron wear a garment reflecting his piety and purity. The bells on the lower hem of this robe had to announce his entering the sanctuary. Aaron's movements were to be like a sounding to the people to commence holy communion. "Let the sound produced by a holy man, wearing pure golden bells awaken you to the imperative to seek out holiness yourself," is the message of that garment. The golden bells were set among red and blue wool and linen pomegarantes, muffling most of the sound of the bells. This teaches three lessons. 1) Man should not publicly proclaim his piety and holiness. Whatever part of his saintliness becomes public, he should consider as trifling. This is why the bells were attached to the bottom of the robe. So whatever is said about a person should be like a pomegranate, which is so much more wholesome and precious on the inside than its shell would indicate. 3) The only things which become public, are heard, should be good things, kodesh. For this reason, the sages say "may something involving sound, come and atone for matters which involved publicity. The tunic, kutonet, is to atone for bloodshed. On the one hand the Torah tells us of Joseph's brothers dipping his tunic in blood. (Genesis 37,31) Violent wicked people have a habit of wearing short tuniccs, so that the leggings would not impede them if they want to make a fast getaway. The tunic described in the Torah here is a long garment, extending down to the heel. Its wearer could not take big steps. It was the kind of garment worn by virgins. When Tamar was raped by Amnon, (Samuel I 13) we find that her tunic was torn after she had been raped. People who normally stay at home, like Joseph, wore such long tunics. Jacob had such a garment made for Joseph, a garment which impedes movement, especially if it is made- as the Torah instructs here- chequered, worked in a manner which adds to its weight, thus further impeding movement. Obviously then, its wearer not only has no designs to shed blood, but rather such a garment would inspire fear of potential murderers in its wearers. This is why the sages use the above mentioned verse (Genesis 37,31) as indicating that wearers are liable to become victims of bloodshed. The mitznefet, mitre, atones for boastfulness, pride. The High Priest did not wear a fancy high hat, but a tightly fitting cap, allowing room for the tefillin and headband, tzitz. This is in contrast with the fools nowadays who wear high hats as attention getters. We can learn modesty from the High Priest, the holiest of men, and act accordingly.

Our Sages say that the offering for the eighth day of dedication was “a calf, a young bullock, for a sin-offering” (Lev. 11:2), in order to atone for the sin of the Israelites in making a golden calf. The sin-offering, which was brought on the Day of Atonement (ibid. 16:3), was likewise explained as being an atonement for that sin. From this argument of our Sages I deduce that he-goats were always brought as sin-offerings, by individual persons and also by the whole congregation, viz., on the Festivals, New-moon, Day of Atonement, and for idolatry, because most of the transgressions and sins of the Israelites were sacrifices to spirits (se‘irim, lit., goats), as is clearly stated, “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto spirits” (Lev. 17:7). Our Sages, however, explained the fact that goats were always the sin-offerings of the congregation, as an allusion to the sin of the whole congregation of Israel: for in the account of the selling of the pious Joseph we read, “And they killed a kid of the goats” (Gen. 37:31). Do not consider this as a weak argument; for it is the object of all these ceremonies to impress on the mind of every sinner and transgressor the necessity of continually remembering and mentioning his sins. Thus the Psalmist says, “And my sin is ever before me” (Ps. 51:3). The above-mentioned sin-offerings further show us that when we commit a sin, we, our children, and the children of our children, require atonement for that sin by some kind of service analogous to the sin committed. If a person has sinned in respect to property he must liberally spend his property in the service of God; if he indulged in sinful bodily enjoyments he must weary his body and trouble it by a service of privation and fasting, and rising early before daybreak. If he went astray in respect to his moral conduct he must oppose his failings by keeping to the opposite extreme, as we have pointed out in Mishneh-torah Hilkot De‘ot (chap. ii.) et passim. If his intellectual faculties have been concerned in the sin, if he has believed something false on account of the insufficiency of his intellect, and his neglect of research and proper study, he must remedy his fault by turning his thoughts entirely away from worldly affairs, and directing them exclusively to intellectual exercise, and by carefully reflecting on that which ought to form the subject of his belief. Comp. “And my heart hath been secretly enticed, but my hand touched my mouth” (Job 31:27). These words express figuratively the lesson that we should pause and stop at that which appears doubtful, as has been pointed out by us in the beginning of this treatise. The same we notice in the case of Aaron. He had his share in the sin of the golden calf, and therefore a bullock and a calf were brought by him and his successors as an offering. Similarly, the sin connected with a kid of goats was atoned for by a kid of goats. When this theory has been well established in the minds of the people, they must certainly be led by it to consider disobedience to God as a disgraceful thing. Every one will then be careful that he should not sin, and require a protracted and burdensome atonement; he will be afraid he might not be able to complete it, and will therefore altogether abstain from sinning, and avoid it. This object [of the laws under discussion] is very clear, and note it likewise.

In order that we may respect the sacrifices and all that is devoted to the name of God, we are told that whosoever takes part of a holy thing for common use has committed a trespass, must bring a sin-offering, and restore what he has taken with an addition of the fifth part of its value, although he may have committed the trespass in ignorance.

Another matter, “vekorbano…” – what did the princes see that led them to present offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: Even though each of them presented an identical offering, they offered it regarding significant matters, and each and every one presented according to his perspective. Naḥshon began and presented regarding the protocol of the monarchy, just as his father crowned him over his brothers, just as it says: “Judah, you, your brothers will acknowledge you…[your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you]. Judah is a lion cub…” (Genesis 49:8–9). Likewise it says: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, as the prince would come from him” (I Chronicles 5:2). There was a tradition in the hand of the tribe of Judah, their Sages, and their prominent leaders, from Jacob our patriarch, regarding everything that is destined to befall each tribe until the messianic era. Likewise, there was a tradition in the hand of each and every tribe regarding what would befall it until the messianic era, from Jacob their father. “Vekorbano…” – he presented the dish and the basin corresponding to the kings of the house of David, who are destined to emerge from him, who ruled over the entire world, over the sea and over the land, e.g., Solomon and the messianic king. Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “For he ruled over the entire region beyond the river, from Tifsaḥ to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel, one said Tifsaḥ is at one end of the world and Gaza is at the other end of the world. One said: They stand adjacent to one another; just as he ruled over Tifsaḥ and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world. And it says: “All the world sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom…. Each would bring his tribute…” (I Kings 10:24–25). From where is it derived that he ruled over the sea? It is as it is written: “Also the fleet of Hiram, which had carried gold from Ophir…” (I Kings 10:11). “For the king had a fleet of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years…” (I Kings 10:22). And it says: “I will set his hand upon the seas, his right on the rivers” (Psalms 89:26). The messianic king, from where is it derived? It is, as it is written: "He will rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the land" (Psalms 72:8). Over the land, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “And all the kings, all the nations will bow to him, will serve him” (Psalms 72:11). And it says: “And behold, among the clouds of the heavens…. To him was given dominion, [honor, and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him]” (Daniel 7:13–14). “The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:35). This is why he presented a dish, corresponding to the sea that surrounds the entire world and resembles a dish. Why was “its weight one hundred and thirty”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because when the Holy One blessed be He gathered all the waters to one place on the third day of the formation of the world, he called them seas, as it is stated: “And to the gathering of the waters, He called seas [yamim]” (Genesis 1:10). The numerical value of yamim is one hundred; yod, yod are twenty, mem, mem are eighty, that is one hundred. Solomon came and added a sea to the construction of the Temple in which the priests could immerse themselves, just as it says: “He crafted the sea, of cast metal, ten cubits from brim to brim, [circular around, and its height was five cubits; a thirty-cubit line would wrap around it]” (I Kings 7:23). Corresponding to those thirty cubits that was the circumference of the sea that Solomon crafted, he added thirty shekels to the weight of the dish corresponding to the sea of Solomon. That is one hundred and thirty shekels, the weight of the dish, corresponding to the seas and to the sea of Solomon. “One silver basin” (Numbers 7:13), it is corresponding to the world, that is shaped like an orb that is tossed from hand to hand. Why was its weight “seventy shekels”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because both of them (Solomon and the Messianic king.) ruled over seventy nations, which exist from one end of the world to the other end. From where is it derived that the sea is shaped in the form of a dish and the world is shaped like an orb? It is like that which we learned: The Rabbis say: Only one that has in its hand a staff, a bird, an orb, a dish, a sword, a crown, or a ring is forbidden. (A statue of a person in whose hands one of these objects appears is considered an idol, and it is forbidden to benefit from it in any way.) A staff, as it rules the entire world with it. A bird: “My hand has grasped the riches of the peoples like a nest” (Isaiah 10:14). An orb, as the world is shaped like an orb. Rabbi Yona said: Alexander of Macedonia, when he sought to ascend heavenward, he would rise and rise until he would see the world as an orb and the sea as a dish. That is why, when they draw him, it is with an orb in his hand. Should they draw him with a dish in his hand? He does not have dominion over the sea. But the Holy One blessed be He has dominion over the sea and has dominion over the land, recues at sea and rescues on land; that is why they brought a dish corresponding to the sea and a basin corresponding to the land. “Both of them full [of high quality flour]" (Numbers 7:13), as the nation brought tributes [menaḥot] (The word menahot can also refer to meal offerings, which typically consist of high quality flour.) to Solomon; likewise they are destined to bring it to the messianic king, just as it says: “[The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute [minḥa]]; the kings of Sheba and Seva will offer gifts” (Psalms 72:10). “Full [mele’im]” means nothing other than gifts, just as it says: “And gave them all [vaymalum] to the king” (I Samuel 18:27). “High quality flour [solet]" (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: "valued [hamesulaim] like gold" (Lamentations 4:2). "Mixed with oil” (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and it says: “Your name is like poured oil” (Song of Songs 1:3), as their good name would go forth throughout the world. Why were they of silver? It is just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, [full of incense]” (Numbers 7:14), corresponding to the ten generations from Peretz to David, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Peretz: [Peretz begot Hetzron]; and Hetzron begot [Ram, and Ram begot Aminadav;] Aminadav begot Naḥshon, [and Naḥshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Oved]; and Oved begot [Yishai], and Yishai begot David” (Ruth 4:18–22). “One…ladle,” as they were all like one hand, all full-fledged righteous men. That is, “full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), as their actions were pleasant like the fragrance of the incense. “One young bull” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Abraham, who was the primary progenitor, and who, in his regard, it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [and took a young bull]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” (Numbers 7:15), this is Isaac, as, in his regard it is stated: “He took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is stated: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:16), corresponding to Judah, who brought Joseph’s fine tunic that he had immersed in the blood of the goat, as it is stated: “They slaughtered a goat [and they dipped the tunic in the blood]" (Genesis 37:31). Judah brought it to his father and said: “Identify this, please, is it your son’s tunic?” (Genesis 37:32). That is why it was meted to him with the same measure, as Tamar said to him: “Identify, please, whose signet, belt, [and staff are these?]” (Genesis 38:25). That is why sin offering is stated in this regard, as they brought it as atonement for him, because he brought anguish to his father. “And for the peace offering [hashelamim], two cattle” (Numbers 7:17) – these are David and Solomon, as they initiated the monarchy, as cattle [bakar] is nothing other than an expression of monarchy, just as it says: “Butter of cattle [bakar] and milk of sheep…” (Deuteronomy 32:14), and we translate it: Give them the plunder of their kings. (Targum Onkelos on the verse. Shelamim) , because they were full-fledged righteous men, (Shelamim is expounded as though it is written shelemim, complete.) and in their days, Israel were flawless [mushlamim], and in the days of Solomon, the kingdom was complete [shelema], as it is stated: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). The two of them built the Temple; David made the foundation, and Solomon built it. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:17) – these are fifteen corresponding to the fifteen kings who were from Reḥavam until Zedekiah, king son of a king. Some were full-fledged righteous men, some were middling, and some were full-fledged wicked men. “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav” (Numbers 7:17). When the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering corresponding to the order of the patriarchs and the royal dynasty, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav.”

“His offering was one silver dish, its weight one hundred and thirty; one silver basin of seventy shekels, in the sacred shekel; both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” (Numbers 7:49). “His offering was one silver dish [kaarat]….” – this is the offering that he presented in the name of Jacob, who had him precede Manasseh, and in the name of Joseph, who, because of his love, Jacob blessed him all those blessings, just as it says: “He blessed Joseph and said: The God [before whom my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, walked…]” (Genesis 48:15), and it says: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh…” (Genesis 48:20). “Dish [kaarat]” – this is Jacob; do not read it as kaarat, but rather, as akeret, who uprooted [akar] the right hand from Manasseh in favor of Ephraim. “Silver” – after, “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20); what he said to Joseph: “His father refused, and said: I know, my son, I know; he too shall become a people…” (Genesis 48:19). “Its weight one hundred and thirty” – corresponding to the one hundred and thirty words that there are from “he laid it on Ephraim’s head” (Genesis 48:14) until “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “One silver basin [mizrak]” – this is Joseph, who was cast away [shenizrak] from his father and sold to Egypt. “One” – as he was king in Egypt, just as it says: “One of the people (Avimelekh said this referring to himself.) almost lay [with your wife]” (Genesis 26:10). Likewise it says: “Joseph was the ruler over the land…” (Genesis 42:6). “Silver” – after “the tongue of the righteous is choice silver,” as due to his wisdom he was privileged to achieve kingship, just as it says: “After God has disclosed all this to you.… You will be in charge of my house…” (Genesis 41:39–40). “Seventy shekels in the sacred shekel” – as Gabriel came and added one letter from the name of the Holy One blessed be He to his name and taught him seventy languages, as it is stated: “He established it as a precept for Joseph [bihosef] (He added a heh, changing Joseph [Yosef] to Yehosef.) when he went out over Egypt; I learned a language I had not known” (Psalms 81:6), as were it not so, the Egyptians would not have accepted Joseph to rule over them. “Both of them full of high-quality flour mixed with oil as a meal offering” – Jacob and Joseph were both full-fledged righteous men, and the two of them resembled one another. This accords with what Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph” (Genesis 37:2). It should have said nothing other than: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Reuben.” Why is it stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”? It is to teach you that Joseph resembled his father in every respect. Just as Jacob was born circumcised, so too, Joseph was born circumcised. Just as this one, his mother was barren, so too, that one, his mother was barren. Just as this one, his mother suffered from the pain of her pregnancy, so too that one, his mother suffered during birth. Just as this one, his mother bore two, so too that one, his mother bore two. Just as this one, his brother seeks to kill him, this one, too, his brothers seek to kill him. This one, his brother hates [soneh] him, and that one, likewise. This one is a shepherd and that one is a shepherd. This one is hated [nistam] and that one is hated. (See Genesis 27:41, 49:23.) This one was stolen from twice: “Stolen in the day and stolen at night” (Genesis 31:39); that one, there is a double expression of stealing: “For I was abducted [gunov gunavti] [from the land of the Hebrews]” (Genesis 40:15). This one was blessed with ten blessings, (See Genesis 27:28–29.) and that one was blessed with ten blessings. (See Deuteronomy 33:13–17.) This one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel, and that one departed and went outside of the Land of Israel. This one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel, and that one took a wife outside of the Land of Israel. This one begot children outside of the Land of Israel, and that one begot children outside of the Land of Israel. This one, angels accompanied him, and that one, angels accompanied him. (A midrash says that when Joseph went to his brothers at the behest of his father, three angels accompanied him.) This one ascended to greatness by means of a dream (See Genesis 28:10–16.) and that one ascended to greatness by means of a dream. This one, his father-in-law’s household was blessed on his account, and that one, his father-in-law’s (According to Bereshit Rabba 86:3, Joseph’s father-in-law Potifera was Potifar.) household was blessed on his account. This one descended to Egypt, and that one descended to Egypt. This one ended the famine and that one ended the famine. (See Bereshit Rabba 89:9.) This one administered an oath to his son, and that one administered an oath to his brothers. This one died in Egypt, and that one died in Egypt. This one was embalmed, and that one was embalmed. This one, his bones ascended, and that one, his bones ascended. Because Joseph resembled his father, that is why it is stated: “These are the chronicles of Jacob, Joseph”; and that is why it is stated: “Both of them full…” – regarding Jacob and Joseph. “One gold ladle of ten shekels, filled with incense” (Numbers 7:50). “One…ladle [kaf]” – it corresponds to the palm of his right hand, which he placed on Ephraim’s head. Why does it call it “one”? It is because it is more significant than the left. “Gold…ten shekels” – it corresponds to the ten words that there are from: “Israel extended his right hand” (Genesis 48:14) until “and he was the younger” (Genesis 48:14). “Filled with incense” – Jacob saw this matter through the divine spirit, that Ephraim was worthy for him to place his right hand on his head. Likewise it says: “Guiding [sikel] his hands, as Manasseh was the first born” (Genesis 48:14). His hands were guided [hiskilu] by the divine spirit, just as it says: “Maskil of Eitan the Ezraḥite” (Psalms 89:1). (This is a psalm stated by Eitan the Ezraḥite with divine guidance.) “One young bull, one ram, one sheep in its first year, as a burnt offering” (Numbers 7:51). “One young [ben bakar] bull” – corresponding to Abraham, as it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [habakar]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” – corresponding to Isaac, in whose regard it is written: “[Abraham…] took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” – corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is written: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). Why did he sacrifice these three kinds of burnt offerings? It corresponds to the three patriarchs, corresponding to the blessing that Jacob blessed them: “Let my name and the name of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac, be called upon them” (Genesis 48:16). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:52). “And for the peace offering, two bulls, five rams, five goats, five lambs in their first year. This was the offering of Elishama son of Amihud” (Numbers 7:53). “One goat as a sin offering” – corresponding to Joseph, as it is written: “They slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). Why did he sacrifice this corresponding to Joseph? It is because when Jacob blessed them with the name of the three patriarchs, likewise, he blessed them with the name of Joseph and made them dependent upon him, as it is stated: “By you Israel shall bless, saying: May God make you like Ephraim and like Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20). “And for the peace offering, two bulls” – corresponding to the two blessings that he blessed them: the former, “[may the angel…] bless the lads” (Genesis 48:16), and the latter, “by you Israel shall bless….” “Five rams, [five goats, five lambs]” – three species, corresponding to three generations that Joseph saw for Ephraim, who were attributed to Joseph, and they were patrilineal houses, as it is stated: “Joseph saw great-grandchildren from Ephraim” (Genesis 50:23). Likewise it says: “These are the sons of Ephraim by their families: Of Shutelaḥ.… And these are the sons of Shutelaḥ: Of Eran…” (Numbers 26:35–36). Ephraim, Shutelaḥ, Eran, these are three sons from three generations. Why were they five each? It corresponds to the five words (In the Hebrew phrase.) of “he placed Ephraim before Manasseh” (Genesis 48:20), as it is from there that Ephraim merited to present his offering first. “This was the offering…” – because he presented the offering in this order, the Holy One blessed be He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Elishama….”

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

“Joseph, seventeen years old…” – and you say he was a lad? (The term lad, used here in connection with Joseph, generally indicates someone younger than seventeen.) It is because he would perform the actions of a lad – he would groom his eyes, lift his heels, and curl his hair. “Was herding…Joseph brought evil report of them to their father” – what did he say? Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Meir says: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Shimon says: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land. Rabbi Yehuda says: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves. Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon said: He was punished for all three of them. “Balance and scales of justice are the Lord’s” (Proverbs 16:11) – the Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘You said: Your sons are suspected of eating the limb of a living animal; as you live, even at their time of corruption, they will slaughter and only then will they eat’ – “and slaughtered a goat” (Genesis 37:31). (After the sale of Joseph, they slaughtered a goat and dipped Joseph’s tunic in its blood. The verse emphasizes that they first slaughtered the goat. ) ‘You said: They are demeaning the sons of the maidservants and calling them slaves’ – “Joseph was sold as a slave” (Psalms 105:17). ‘You said: They are directing their glances at the girls of the land; as you live, I will incite the bear against you’ – “His master’s wife cast her eyes [upon Joseph, and she said: Lie with me]” (Genesis 39:7).

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

R. Judah held that he told his father: My brothers eat the limbs of living animals. However, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Even in the hour of their deepest degradation, they will not do that. They will slaughter their animals according to the rules of ritual slaughter, as is said: And they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat (Gen. 37:31).

Another matter: “Behind your braid your hair is like a flock of goats that streams down [shegaleshu] from Mount Gilad” (Song of Songs 4:1) – the mountain from whose midst you took away [shegelashtem], I rendered a memorial for the nations of the world. Which is this? This is the Temple, as it is stated: “You are awesome, God, from Your Temple” (Psalms 68:36). From where does awe emerge? Is it not from the Temple? This is what it says: “You shall observe My Sabbaths and you shall revere My Sanctuary” (Leviticus 26:2) – as it is sanctified in its destruction just as it was sanctified while it was built. The matters can be inferred a fortiori: If to His Temple the Holy One blessed be He did not show favor, when He will come to exact punishment upon its destroyers all the more so. What is it that you took away from its midst? “Your teeth are like a flock of ordered ewes” (Song of Songs 4:2) – defined matters, these are the vestments of the High Priesthood, as we learned there: (Yoma 71b) The High Priest serves in eight vestments and the common [priest] in four: tunic, trousers, mitre, and sash. The High Priest adds beyond these the breastplate, ephod, robe, and the sacred frontplate. The tunic would atone for murderers, just as it states: “They dipped the tunic in blood” (Genesis 37:31); some say for those who don garments of diverse kinds, just as it states: “He made for him a fine tunic” (Genesis 37:3). (This verse refers to the tunic that Jacob made for Joseph. According to one opinion, it contained wool and linen (see Bereshit Rabba 84:8). At the very least, its stripes could be reminiscent of different types of materials. The midrash takes this as an allusion to the fact that the tunic of the High Priest atones for the transgression of diverse kinds.) The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, just as it states: “Make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the haughty, just as you say: “You shall place the mitre on his head” (Exodus 29:6). For what did the sash atone? For those with criminal thoughts. (Apparently text should be added here such that this sentence reads: For thieves, and some say for criminal thoughts (see Vayikra Rabba 10:6).) The reason for the one who says for the thieves, it is because it was hollow, corresponding to thieves who perform their actions clandestinely. (There was space inside the sash, like a secret hiding place.) According to the one who says it was for criminal thoughts, Rabbi Levi said: It was thirty-two cubits long, and he would twist it to this side and that. (He would wrap it all the way around himself multiple times, representing the twisted thoughts of those with criminal and dishonest intent.) The breastplate would atone for those who distort justice, just as it says: “You shall place in the breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:30). The ephod would atone for idol worshippers, just as it says: “No ephod and no terafim” (Hosea 3:4). (Terafim are household idols.) The robe would atone for evil speech. Rabbi Simon [said] in the name of Rabbi Yonatan of Beit Guvrin: There are two items for which there was no atonement (No offering designated to atone for it.) but the Torah designated atonement for them, and these are: Evil speech and one who murders unwittingly. There was no atonement for evil speech, but the Torah designated atonement for it: the bell of the robe, as it is stated: “It shall be upon Aaron to serve, and its sound shall be heard…” (Exodus 28:35). Let the sound come and atone for the sound of evil speech. There was no atonement for one who murders unwittingly, but the Torah designated atonement for it, this is the death of the High Priest, as it stated: “He shall dwell in it until the death of the High Priest” (Numbers 35:25). The frontplate would atone for the impudent, and there is one who says for the blasphemers. The one who says for the impudent, just as it says: “On Aaron’s forehead [metzaḥ]” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “Yet you had the impudence [metzaḥ] of a harlot…” (Jeremiah 3:3). According to the one who says for the blasphemers, “it shall be on his forehead always” (Exodus 28:38), and below it says: “the stone penetrated his forehead” (I Samuel 17:49). (The stone shot by David penetrated the forehead of Goliath, who had blasphemed God.) It is written: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49). Why is it that “he fell on his face”? (The force of the stone to his forehead should have caused him to fall backward.) Rather, initially you learn: “His height was six cubits and one span” (I Samuel 17:4) – so that this righteous one will not be inconvenienced to walk his entire height, therefore, it is written: “He fell on his face to the ground.” (Divine providence had Goliath fall forward so that David would not have to walk too far in order to cut off his head.) Rabbi Huna said: It is because Dagon his god was engraved on his heart, to fulfill what is stated: “I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols” (Leviticus 26:30). Another matter: “He fell on his face to the ground” (I Samuel 17:49) – Rabbi said: So that the disgusting mouth that cursed and blasphemed would be hidden [in the ground], like that which is stated: “Hide them in the dust together” (Job 40:13). Alternatively, “he fell on his face to the ground” – so that this righteous one would not have a troubled mind. (He would be certain that Goliath no longer posed a danger even though he was not yet dead.) Alternatively, “he fell on his face” – so that this righteous one would come and step on [the back of] his neck, to fulfill what is stated: “You will trample their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29). “That have come up from bathing” (Song of Songs 4:2) – they atone for Israel. “That are all paired” (Song of Songs 4:2) – these are the two braided chains of gold that emerge from the midst of the breastplate and appeared from its midst like two tassels. “And there is none missing among them” (Song of Songs 4:2) – that not one of them was tattered. “Your lips are like a scarlet thread” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the sacred crown. (This is a reference to the blue threads that passed over the head of the High Priest and fastened the frontlet to his forehead.) “Your speech is lovely” (Song of Songs 4:3) – this is the frontplate. Rabbi Yonatan was ascending to pray in Jerusalem. When he reached a certain Pelatinus, (This is a reference to Mount Gerizim, which the Cuthites and Samaritans considered sacred.) a certain Cuthite encountered him. He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Where are you going?’ [Rabbi Yonatan]said to him: ‘To pray in Jerusalem.’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Would it not be preferable for you to ascend and pray on this blessed mountain and not pray in those ruins [in Jerusalem]?’ [Rabbi Yonatan] said to him: ‘Why is this mountain blessed?’ He said to [Rabbi Yonatan]: ‘Because it was not flooded with the Flood waters.’ That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not flooded with the Flood waters. An answer slipped the mind of Rabbi Yonatan at that moment and he did not respond to him. His donkey driver said to him: ‘Rabbi, allow me, and I will respond to him.’ He said to him: ‘Respond to him.’ He said to that Cuthite: ‘This mountain, what do you consider it? If it is one of the high mountains, is it not written: “All the high mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:19)? If it is one of the low mountains, it is written: “Fifteen cubits upward the waters intensified, and the mountains were covered” (Genesis 7:20). The verse did not address the low mountains. If regarding the high mountains it is written: “All the mountains were covered,” all the more so regarding the low ones.’ At that moment the Cuthite fell silent and was unable to find a response. At that moment, Rabbi Yonatan dismounted and drove his donkey driver three mil, and he read in his regard three verses: “You will be the most blessed of all the peoples; there will be no male or female infertile among you or among your animals” (Deuteronomy 7:14), even among those of you who work with animals; and this: “Any weapon crafted against you will not succeed…” (Isaiah 54:17); and this: “your temple is like a pomegranate slice [rakatekh]” (Song of Songs 4:3) – even the empty [reikan] among Israel is packed with answers like a pomegranate. “Behind your braid [letzamatekh]” – and it goes without saying regarding the modest and the fervent [metzumatin] among you.

3) (Vayikra 9:2): "And he said to Aaron: Take for yourself a bull-calf for a sin-offering": We are hereby taught that Moses said to Aaron: Aaron, my brother, even though the Holy One Blessed be He has consented to forgive your sins (in the episode of the golden calf), you must "place something in Satan's mouth." Send your gift before you before entering the sanctuary lest he condemn you upon your entering the sanctuary. And lest you say: Is it only I who need atonement? Israel, too, needs atonement, viz. (Vayikra 9:3): "And to the children of Israel shall you speak, saying: Take a kid of goats for a sin-offering, and a calf, etc." And why was it Israel's lot to bring more than Aaron? He said to them: You are culpable in the beginning and culpable in the end. In the beginning (at the sale of Yosef) — (Bereshith 37:31): "And they slaughtered a kid of goats, etc."; in the end — (Shemoth 32:8): "They have made for themselves a molten calf." Let a kid of goats come and atone for the "act" of goats, let a calf come and atone for the "act" of the calf.

And Chazal say concerning this in the Midrash (Midrash Rabbah): "(Mishlei 16:11): 'A scale and just balances are the L-rd's' — for all of them he was punished measure for measure. For 'they call their brothers servants' — Jacob was sold as a servant. For 'they are suspect of illicit relations' — all of Egypt suspected him with the wife of Potiphar. For 'they are suspect of eiver min hachai' because he did not see them perform shechitah — this was a mistake, and Scripture thus apprises us (Bereshith 37:3): 'And they slaughtered a kid of goats' (after having sold him) and did not eat it live."

We explained that those letters signified death, i.e. the spilling of man's blood. The removal of the letter א caused the substitution of the letter ע. This meant that עור ובשר, skin and flesh, replaced the entity previously called אדם, and death in the form of blood entered the world. Expressed differently, Adam's כתונת was removed. When Jacob provided Joseph with a כתונת, this symbolized the reversal of that negative development. When the brothers dipped that כתונת, coat, in blood, they symbolically nullified Jacob's intention. As a result of this, the Holy Spirit departed from Jacob; he remained in mourning, and until he received the news that Joseph was alive the Presence of the שכינה did not return to him. Only then does the Torah state: ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם, "Jacob's (holy) spirit revived" (45,27). Onkelos translates those words as: "The prophetic spirit again came to rest on their father Jacob." It is reasonable to assume that the Holy Spirit departed from Joseph at the time it departed from Jacob. No doubt Joseph experienced emotional distress, if only because he felt the distress his father must have experienced by not knowing his favorite son's whereabouts. Besides, how could Joseph, who was the spiritual extension of Jacob, not be sensitive to his father's anguish? Jacob's descent to Egypt must also be seen from this angle, i.e. two parts becoming re-united. [It was politically impossible for Joseph to return to the land of Canaan while alive, since we know that he could not even be buried in Canaan after he died. Ed.]

ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו, “These are the garments they are to make, etc.” Our sages in Erchin 16 say that just as the sacrifices themselves were instruments of atonement for the Jewish people, so the priestly garments (when worn at the right time in the right place by the right people) were also instruments helping the Jewish people to achieve atonement. This is the reason that the section dealing with the priestly garments was written right next to the section dealing with the sacrifices themselves (the consecration offerings 29,18). The breastplate would atone for sins committed erroneously by judges, as is written: ועשית חושן משפט, “you are to make the breastplate of judgment” (verse 15). The ephod would secure atonement for the sin of idolatry committed inadvertently as we are reminded by Hoseah 3,4: “and there will be no ephod and no teraphim.” It is also written in Judges 8,27 that Gideon converted gifts of gold given to him into a garment called ephod, something that was accounted a sin for him [seeing he did not treat it as a garment but as a sort of monument. Ed.]. The robe called מעיל secured atonement for loose use of one’s tongue, לשון הרע; this is symbolized by the bells at the lower hem of that tunic, מעיל. This robe had a number of bells at the lower edge of which could be heard when the High Priest wearing it was approaching. Just as the evil tongue is something that was spread in public, so the atonement procedure was by means of a garment heard in public. When evil was spoken in private by someone, (who was unaware that he was guilty of unfair comments) the means of atonement for this was the incense. The checkered tunic, כתונת תשבץ, would secure atonement for blood spilled inadvertently. This has been alluded to in Genesis 36,31: “they dipped the tunic in blood.” This tunic resembled a type of shirt and was worn next to the skin (like a T-shirt with sleeves). It was embroidered with gold threads designed in a checkered manner so that it appeared to have “stripes” through it. This is what is meant by (28,39) “you shall make the tunic of a box-like knit of fine linen.” The word תשבץ is the same as משבצות זהב (compare Maimonides Hilchot Klei Hamikdash 9,19). The headgear worn by the High Priest, i.e. the מצנפת, would obtain forgiveness for haughty bearing and deportment. It was appropriate that something worn high on top of one’s head should be the symbol by means of which haughtiness could be atoned for. The אבנט, belt, would secure atonement for lewd fantasies and other sinful thoughts. Our sages in Jerusalem Talmud Yuma 7,3 claim that the length of this belt was 32 cubits (about 20 meters) The golden head band, ציץ, worn by the High Priest on his forehead would atone for effrontery. We have a verse in Jeremiah 3,3 describing effrontery as associated with the forehead. The prophet speaks of the “brazenness of a harlot,” using the word מצח to define brazenness. Aaron had a total of eight garments of which the Torah lists only six. The Torah did not mention his linen trousers as only the garments Moses was to dress him in qualified for this paragraph. The headband, being made of pure gold, is also not enumerated as one of the garments, as, strictly speaking, it was an ornament rather than a garment. The instruction for Aaron to wear linen pants was given only in verse 42 after Moses had already been instructed to dress him in his garments. Had Moses been meant to dress Aaron in his pants the instructions to dress Aaron would not have been written only at the end of verse 42 The function of the pants as a means of securing atonement extended to sins of a sexual or incestuous nature as man is perceived as using his legs to run after chances to obtain sexual gratification.

קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ועגל וכבש בני שנה תמימה לעולה, “take a he-goat for a sin-offering and a calf as well as an unblemished sheep in its first year for a burnt-offering.” In Sifra Shemini 3 the question is posed why the Israelites had to offer more sacrifices than Aaron, i.e. both a he-goat, a calf and a sheep. The answer given is that the Israelites had sinned with a he-goat when they had drenched Joseph’s coat in its blood at the time; now they had been guilty of committing a sin using a calf. It was appropriate therefore that they receive expiation for both of these sins. Each of these two sin-offerings was to atone for the sin committed with its counterpart.

And unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. This means that Aaron is to speak to them thus, as it was His wish that Aaron should be the one who commands in the name of G-d, and that he should be the one who would bring the offerings, in order to elevate him in the eyes of the people. The correct interpretation is that the expression and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, means you [Aaron] and the elders mentioned [in Verse 1], since it was for that purpose that he called them, (As Verse 1 states: And it came to pass on the eighth day, that Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel.) so that they should speak to the children of Israel, as in the verse, And Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them: Draw out [and take you lambs]. (Exodus 12:21.) Or it may be that [Moses] said to each of the elders, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak [the singular word thou thus referring to each one of the elders]. Accordingly, the meaning of the section is as follows: and he [Moses] said to Aaron: Take thee etc., and to [each of] the elders he said, and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak. For one who speaks to many people usually addresses his command to each person individually, something like that which it is said, And I commanded you at that time, saying etc.: Ye shall pass over armed before your brethren. (Deuteronomy 3:18.) There are many such cases in the Book of Deuteronomy [where Moses speaks to the whole congregation, when his message is actually addressed to each person individually]. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that the verse, And Moses said: This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do, (Verse 6.) means that “Moses had already told them, this is the thing.” If so, it is possible that the meaning of the verses be as follows: Moses called Aaron and his sons and the elders of Israel, and Moses said: This thing which the Eternal has commanded me ye should do, that the Glory of the Eternal may appear unto you; (Verse 6.) and he said unto Aaron: Take thee a bull-calf etc.; and unto the children of Israel thou shalt speak, saying: Take ye a he-goat for a sin-offering etc. (Verse 3. — Ibn Ezra thus transposes the contents of Verse 6, and explains that it was said immediately in Verse 1, as an introduction to the specific commands following.) Thus [Moses] spoke briefly at first [as in Verse 6] and then explained himself at the end [in Verses 2-4]. But this is not correct. Rather, after Moses had mentioned to them the offerings [which they were required to bring on that day], and they brought that which Moses commanded, (Verse 5.) he said to them again, This is the thing which the Eternal commanded that ye should do, (Verse 6.) meaning that they should bring the offerings in the order that he would command them, and afterwards the Glory of the Eternal would appear to them. Now since he had said, for today the Eternal appeareth unto you, (Verse 4.) he went back and said that He would appear to them through His Glory. Now these offerings [which were brought on the eighth day after the completion of the seven-day consecration of the priests], were not mentioned in the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me, (Exodus 29:1.) for there He only gave the command about the consecration, and their days of consecration were completed with the seven days and their offerings, but now on the eighth day, they themselves brought the offerings [whereas on the seven days of the consecration, the offerings were brought by Moses]. Thus these offerings [brought on the eighth day] were a kind of initiation for the priests, as was the meal-offering of the baken cakes (Above, 6:13-15.) command for future generations [which were brought] on the day when he is anointed. (Ibid., Verse 13. I.e., on the day that the ordinary priests are installed into the priestly service. The High Priest, however, brought this meal-offering every day. Ramban thus suggests that the offerings brought on the eighth day [as explained in this section] were a sort of initiation, comparable to the meal-offering brought in future generations by the ordinary priest once in his lifetime, and by the High Priest every day.) It is possible that it was in order to atone for the incident of the golden calf that He now gave them these added offerings, for at the time when He commanded the section of And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, to minister unto Me, (Exodus 29:1.) the golden calf had not yet been made, as I have explained, (See Ramban above, 8:1: “By way of the proper interpretation of Scripture etc.”) and therefore He did not mention them [these offerings] there. It is thus not as Rashi wrote there, (Exodus 29:1.) that the bullock [offered on each of the seven days of consecration] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf, but these bullocks were to purify the altar, (See Ramban above, 8:15.) and for Aaron and his sons in order to hallow them, (Exodus 29:1.) and it was this calf [brought] on the eighth day that was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus Aaron’s offerings [on this eight day] were the same as his offerings on the Day of Atonement, (Further, 16:3: Herewith shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering.) [namely, the bull-calf for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering, as mentioned in the verse before us], and the people’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as their sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, namely, one he-goat for a sin-offering. (Verse 3 here, and further, 16:5. — On the Day of Atonement there were actually two he-goats for a sin-offering, but only one was brought as an offering in the Sanctuary (see further, 16:8-22).) So also have the Rabbis said in the Tosephta of the section of consecration, in the Torath Kohanim, (Torath Kohanim, at the beginning of Shemini 4.) that this calf [brought on the eighth day] was to atone for the incident of the golden calf. Thus they interpreted: “For what reason did Israel bring more offerings [on this day] than Aaron? (Israel’s sin-offering on that day was a he-goat, while Aaron’s was a calf. As a burnt-offering Israel brought a calf and a ram, while Aaron’s was only a ram. The Torath Kohanim suggests a reason why the people’s offerings had to be more than those of Aaron, and also why their sin-offering was a he-goat, unlike that of Aaron which was a calf.) It was on account of what He said to them: ‘You [the people] have in your hands [sin] at the beginning, and you have in your hands [sin] at the end.’ You have sinned at the beginning, as it is written [when the brothers sold Joseph], and they killed a he-goat, (Genesis 37:31.) and you have sinned at the end, as it is said, they have made them a molten calf. (Exodus 32:8.) Therefore let them bring the he-goat [for a sin-offering] to atone for the incident connected with that of the he-goat, and let them bring a calf [as a burnt-offering] to atone for the incident of the golden calf.” It would appear that because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering [on this eighth day] was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, therefore he burnt it [outside the camp] (Further, Verse 11. Rashi wrote that this was done at the express command of G-d. But Ramban at this point suggests that this procedure was adopted on the basis of a similar law on the Day of Atonement, since the reason for both offerings was identical.) as the one of the Day of Atonement is burnt, (Further, 16:27.) even though this sin-offering [of the eighth day] was “an outer sin-offering” (See in Seder Tzav, Note 52. Ramban’s concluding thought here — “for Moses did not explain that he should do so” — is thus to be understood as follows: Since Scripture does not relate that Moses commanded Aaron to burn his sin-offering outside the camp although it was not “an inner sin-offering,” the question arises why did Aaron do so [as stated in Verse 11]? It must be, Ramban suggests, because the reason for Aaron’s sin-offering on this eighth day of the initiation was the same as that of his sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, which being “an inner sin-offering” is rightfully burnt outside the camp, and hence Aaron on this eighth day did similarly. In the text following, Ramban will suggest that Aaron actually received this command from Moses, and the reason why Scripture did not mention it is explained in the text of Ramban.) [while that of the Day of Atonement was “an inner sin-offering”], for Moses did not explain that he should do so. But perhaps Aaron was indeed so commanded, and [it is not mentioned because] Scripture did not want to prolong the matter, it being known that Aaron would only do what Moses said, and that Moses would only say what G-d had commanded.

hanging turbans [Heb. סְרוּחֵי טְבוּלִים.] [סְרוּחֵי means] oversized, large hats. Menachem (p. 97) explains [טְבוּלִים] like (Gen. 37: 31) “and dipped (וַיִטְבְּלוּ) the shirt in the blood.” Thus the interpretation of סְרוּחֵי טְבוּלִים is as follows (Exod. 26:12): “The overhanging (וְסֵרַח) length” of the dyed turban. There is no [other occurrence of a word] similar to טְבוּלִים, and its meaning is derived from the context, and so did Jonathan render: helmets placed on their heads].

את דבתם רעה THEIR EVIL REPORT — Whatever he saw wrong in his brothers, the sons of Leah, he reported to his father: that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal, that they treated the sons of the handmaids with contempt, calling them slaves, and that they were suspected of living in an immoral manner. With three such similar matters he was therefore punished. In consequence of his having stated that they used to eat flesh cut off from a living animal Scripture states, (Genesis 37:31) “And they slew a he-goat" after they had sold him and they did not eat its flesh whilst the animal was still living. And because of the slander which he related about them that they called their brothers slaves — (Psalms 105:17) “Joseph was sold for a slave.” And because he charged them with immorality (Genesis 39:7) “his master’s wife cast her eyes upon him etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 84:7).

שעיר עזים [ONE] KID OF THE GOATS — in order to make expiation for the “selling of Joseph” with reference to whom it states, (Genesis 37:31) “and they slaughtered a kid of the goats” (Numbers Rabbah 13:13).

he pursues statements which are futile He seeks to promulgate the halachah, but it is not in his possession. The midrash interprets it as concerning Joseph, who spread slander about his brothers. He would say to his father that they were suspected of [eating] limbs from a living animal. Therefore, they hated him, and he was called a poor man because he would spread false rumors about them and look for statements that were not true (לא המה). We read לו, “to him,” for he would pursue statements for his own benefit, and in Joseph’s matter, they were his, because his slander returned upon him. He would say that they ate limbs from a living animal, but Scripture testifies about them that even in the time of sin, they would slaughter a kid, as it is said: (Gen. 37:31) “and they slaughtered a kid.” He would say that they degraded the sons of the maidservants. Therefore, Joseph was sold as a slave. He would say that they gazed upon the women of the land. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “By your life, I will incite a bear upon you.” Therefore, (ibid. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted, etc.” [This appears] in Genesis Rabbah [see 84:7].

KARPAS Dipping karpas in salt water or vinegar is one of the things we do on the seder night to arouse the curiosity of children so they will ask, “What makes this night unlike all other nights?” It is one of the two acts referred to in the question “every other night we do not dip [our food] at all, but tonight we will dip it twice.” The other, just before the meal, is the dipping of maror in ḥaroset. There is symbolic significance in these two acts. The Exodus began and ended with acts of dipping. It began when Joseph’s brothers sold him into slavery. They dipped his robe in the blood of a slaughtered goat (Gen. 37:31) and brought it to Jacob to persuade him that Joseph had been attacked and killed by a wild animal. The sale of Joseph into slavery in Egypt was the beginning of the long process through which the entire family of Jacob traveled to Egypt and eventually became slaves. The exile ended with the Israelites’ taking bunches of hyssop, dipping them in the blood of the Paschal offering, and daubing them on the door-frames of their houses (Ex. 12:22). God “passed over” these houses during the final plague, after which they went free. The two dippings recall these events. The karpas, itself sweet, is dipped in salt and becomes sour. The maror, itself bitter, is dipped in the sweet ḥaroset and has some of the bitterness removed. These two acts remind us that freedom, which is sweet, becomes sour when we use it to mistreat others. Slavery, which is bitter, is sweetened when collective suffering becomes human solidarity and thus a prelude to freedom.

And this is the thing: Rabbi Anani bar Sasson said, "Why was the section about the sacrifices juxtaposed to the section about the garments of the priesthood? To tell you, just like the sacrifices atone, so too do the garments of the priesthood atone." (Rashi explained, Why in Parshat Tzav was, "This is the law of the burnt-offering, etc.," juxtaposed to what it goes to, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments." To here are his [words]. But in Arakhin 15a, it explains that the intention is about this section, which is the section of the inauguration, and it is juxtaposed to the section of the garments earlier. And it seems like the main approach is like the explanation in Arakhin. For the main section about the priestly garments is here. And I have also carefully noted in several place that when the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "Why was this section juxtaposed to that section," they always first took the passage that is written later in the Torah. For example, in Berakhot 10a, "Why was the section about Avshalom juxtaposed to the section about Gog and Magog (Psalms 2,3)?" And behold that the section of Avshalom is written after the section of Gog and Magog... And likewise in Moed Katan 28a, "Why was the the death of Miriam juxtaposed to the section about the heiffer?"... In all of them, they are arranged that the later is placed first. And here too, if it was like Rashi wrote here, that it is intending Parsaht Tzav, in which it is written, "This is the law of the burnt-offering," and then, "Take Aharon [etc.] and the garments," it should have said, "Why is the section about the garments of the priesthood juxtaposed to the section of the sacrifices." Examine this and you will find it simple. And the simple understanding of the matter indicates that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone. But according to that, there is a need to investigate Rashi in Yoma 72b at the top, in his explanation of, "Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, nothing would have remained of [the Jewish people], etc." He wrote: Were it not for the garments of the priesthood, with which they would offer sacrifices that atone for the Jewish people. To here are his [words]. But why did he not explain more simply that the garments of the priesthood themselves atone, like the simple reading here? And it must be said that he holds that the garments only atone then when they are doing the holy service with them, the enactment of the sacrifices; and not with their being worn itself.) The tunic atoned for the spilling of blood, as it is stated (Parsaht Vayeshev, Genesis 37:31), "and they slaughtered a goat, and immersed the coat in the blood." (This is a hint to the future when the atonement for the spilling of blood would be with the tunic of the garments of the priesthood. And immersion means atonement. And it is explained in the Gemara that this atonement is only with a murderer that is impossible to judge, such as if they did not warn him. But a murderer who is liable for death is not atoned towards the congregation so long as they have not judged him, as it is written (at the end of Parshat Maasei, "and for the land there can be no atonement for the blood that was spilled in it, except through the blood of the one who spilled it." And see what I have written at the beginning of Parshat Haazinu on the verse, "Let my instruction flow like rainfall" (Deuteronomy 32:2). But in the Yerushalmi, Yoma7:3, it is found that the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures. And so is it in the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav; and Shir HaShirim [Rabbah] 4:7. However the reason of this thing, [that] the tunic atones for those who have worn forbidden mixtures, is not explained. And in the glosses of the Radal (R. David Luria) on the Midrash Rabbah, Parshat Tzav, he writes there it is because the tunic consisted of forbidden mixtures. And it is a great wonder about such an unusual genius as he, that he erred about something well known and simple: For in all of the garments of the priesthood, only the belt, the breastplate and the apron were [from forbidden mixtures;] (unless we say it was a copier's mistake in his words, and it should say, because the tunic did not consist of forbidden mixtures. Meaning that since there were no forbidden mixtures in it, that is why it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. However according to this, it is not clear why specifically the tunic, and not the other garments of the priesthood that did not have forbidden mixtures? And that requires investigation.) And I wonder about that which the Maharil wrote (Laws of Yom Kippur 3:2), that the custom in Mainz on Yom Kippur is not to recite the penitential prayer, "But we are guilty," because it has fixed in it that the tunic of the high priest would atone for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. And the Ravah (R. Wolf Heidenheim) explained his words: It is because this is against the opinion of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, in Zevachim 88b, that the tunic atones for the spilling of blood; and not as it is written in the formula of [this] prayer, that it atones for the iniquity of forbidden mixtures. To here are his [words]. And this is a wonderous thing! For behold this opinion is explicitly expressed in the Yerushalmi and in two places in the Midrash Rabbah! And that which the writer of the penitential prayer chose this opinion against that which is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud (and in general, we hold that the Babylonian Talmud is the main one) - that is nothing new with the liturgical poets. And the Tosafot in Chagigah 13a already wrote that the liturgical poets are accustomed in several places to put aside the the position of the Babylonian Talmud and to grasp on to the Yerushalmi. And see Tosafot on Chullin 109b, and these are their [words]: And [the liturgical poet] did everything according to the Yerushalmi. To here are their [words]. And the same is true here. However there is certainly no reason and logic at all to prevent the saying of the penitential prayer on account of this.) And the pants atone for sexual prohibitions, as it is stated (Exodus 28:42), "Make for them linen pants to cover the nakedness of their flesh." The turban atones for those who are haughty, let something high come and atone for haughtiness. The belt atones for the thoughts of the heart, where it is. (As they would tie it across from the underarms, meaning across from the heart. And see Tosafot on Arakhin 15b.) The breastplate atones for [incorrect] judgments, as it is stated (Exodus 28:15), "And you shall make a breastplate of judgment." The apron atones for idol worship, as it is stated (Hosea 3:4), "and without breastplate or oracle idols." (Rashi explained: When there is no apron, there is the iniquity of oracle idols. To here are his [words]. And I did not know where he found a hint to expound like this. And is not the simple understanding that there is no apron and also no oracle idols? And maybe he found a hint in the rest of the wording of that verse, "without a king, without officials, without sacrifice, without cult pillars and without an apron and oracle idols." And behold in every detail, it attached the word, without (ein), even though it could have written, "without king, or officials, without sacrifice or cult pillars." But since it wrote, "without," for each detail; and it only left out writing, "without," with the oracle gods; that is why he expounded, "without an apron (meaning, when there is no apron), there are oracle idols.) The robe atones for evil speech. Let something with noise (kol) come and atone for an evil noise. ("Let something with noise come," means the bells in the robe, which give off a noise. And that which it describes evil speech with the word, noise, even though it is possible to also be muted - is because we learn the main matter of evil speech from the verse in Proverbs (27:14), "He who greets his fellow loudly," as it is explained in the discussion in Arakhin 16a. Indeed, it is the incense that actually atones for muted evil speech, as will be explained ahead in Parashat Korach, on the verse (Number 17:12), "and he put on incense and atoned for the people." And they said [about this], "Let something that is muted come (since the incense is done in a muted way, as it is written about this, 'No man shall be present in the Tent of Meeting'), and atone for something muted." See there ahead.) And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. With the frontplate, it is written (Exodus 28:38), "And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead"; and with brazenness it is written (Jeremiah 3:3), "and you had a harlot’s forehead." (And the end of the verse is, "you refused to be ashamed." And it is the way of the brazen not to be ashamed. And see the Yerushalmi, Yoma 7:3; and in the Midrash Rabbah on Shir HaShirim 4 - there are different variants about this homily. ) (Zevachim 88b)

[221] So Moses shews the insight of a philosopher in introducing this coat all blood-stained (Gen. 37:31), since the whole life of the statesman is stained, warring and being warred upon, receiving blows and shots from the mishaps which befall it.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? Doesn’t Rabbi Anani bar Sason say: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus 8) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7)? To tell you that just as offerings atone, so too the priestly vestments atone. For what does each garment atone? The tunic [ketonet] atones for bloodshed, as it is written with regard to Joseph’s brothers after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the coat [ketonet] in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is written with regard to the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42).

Rabbi Shimon would say: Such is the punishment for a liar, that even when he speaks the truth, no one listens to him. So we find with the children of Jacob, who deceived their father. In the beginning he believed them, as it says (Genesis 37:31), “They took Joseph’s coat, slaughtered a goat,” and then it says (Genesis 37:33), “He recognized it, and said: This is my son’s coat! But afterward, even when they spoke the truth to him, he did not believe them, as it says (Genesis 45:26), ([“His heart became numb, for he did not believe them.”]) “They told him, and said: Joseph is still alive…[but] he did not believe them.” Some say that the holy spirit that had departed from Jacob now returned to him, as it says (Genesis 45:27), “And the spirit of their father Jacob was revived.”

(A parallel (except for the corrector’s additions) is found in the Babli, Zevaḥim88b, Arakhin 16a, in the name of R. Anani bar Sason.) Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments (The High Priest’s.) atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim (While most of the High Priest’s garments contained kilaim, only the shirt was worn directly on the body. It seems that the trident here interprets the argument at the start of kilaim 9:1 to mean that biblically on kilaim which gives immediate protection to the body is forbidden.) There are those who want to say,] (Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.)) for spillers of blood, as you are saying, (Gen. 37:31.) they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness (The technical term for incest and adultery.) , as you are saying (Ex. 28:42.) , make for them linen trousers to cover the flesh (“Flesh” as a limb always denotes the penis, the only boneless limb.) of nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying, (Lev. 8:9. This is a pun on the expression “thick of head” for “haughty”.) he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for] (Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.)) the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying (Ex. 28.15.) , you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying (Hos.3:5.) , without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement (They do qualify for any obligatory sacrifice.) but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard (Ex. 28:35.) . The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest (Num. 35:25.) . He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.

They took Yoseif’s coat, slaughtered a [male] goat, and dipped the coat in the blood.

But they took the garment of Joseph, and killed a kid of the goats, because his blood is like the blood of a man, and they dabbled the garment in the blood.

Numbers 13,2. “send out men for your own ‎satisfaction.” We have a rule that when an Israelite ‎arrives at a place where he serves the Lord, all the ”sparks” (that ‎had fallen to earth from the Shechinah on account of some ‎misdemeanour) that are scattered around him, feel ashamed in ‎the presence of such people. [The expression ‎ניצוצות‎, ‎sparks, occurs both as something material, though not tangible, ‎in the writings of Maimonides for instance, examples hilchot ‎Shabbat 28/25 and hilchot tefillin 4,18, whereas in ‎‎Yalkut Shimoni, i.e. midrashic exegesis, it occurs as more ‎esoteric, though not as applicable to purely spiritual beings as in ‎‎kabbalah. Up until this point, our author always used the ‎term for spiritual concepts such as “fallen angels.” At this point I ‎am not quite sure how to understand his reference to it. ‎Ed.] In the Talmud Shabbat 31 we read that G’d created the ‎universe only in order that His creatures be in awe of Him. ‎‎(opinion of Rabbi Yehudah) The scriptural “proof” for this ‎opinion quoted is Kohelet 3,14 ‎והאלוקים עשה שייראו מלפניו‎, ‎‎“and G’d has acted so that [man] should stand in awe of Him.” ‎Accordingly, it appears that the author understands the word ‎ניצוצות‎ here as negative forces that obstruct man in his quest to ‎fulfill the Creator’s commandments. When these negative forces ‎‎(commonly called Satan) observe how man goes out of his way to ‎fulfill G’d’s commandments, they become ashamed, and while in ‎that state man can easily overcome their feeble efforts to distract ‎him from serving G’d. (and, according to our author elevate these ‎negative forces to a higher spiritual level in the process of his ‎worshipping Gd.) There is, however, a limitation to the statement ‎expressed in the rule expressed at the beginning of our exegesis, ‎and this is that the rule that the person wishing to worship G’d ‎can overcome external obstacles is based on the premise that he ‎himself has freed himself of subjective, sensually influenced ‎considerations when setting out to perform one of G’d’s ‎commandments.‎ The choice of the words ‎שלח‎, at the beginning of our portion ‎is reminiscent of Genesis 37:32 where Onkelos translates the word ‎וישלחו‎, commonly translated as: “they sent,” as ‎ושלחו‎, “they ‎stripped” [Joseph of his striped coat, the personification of ‎his earthly aspirations. Ed.]

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent the striped coat, etc.” the Torah abbreviated here; the full text should have been: “they sent the striped coat to their father, and the messengers who delivered it said: “this is what we found;” the brothers themselves did not want to become associated with the find, so as not becoming suspect in having had anything to do with Joseph’s death. After all, the fact that they had hated Joseph had been common knowledge.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, “they sent Joseph’s special garment,” (suitably torn and drenched in blood). The correct interpretation of this verse which on the face of it contains a contradiction, when it continues with: ”they brought it to their father,” claiming that they had found it, is that the carriers of Joseph’s garment brought it to the brothers’ father, Yaakov. Another interpretation of the word וישלחו, is “they dragged it.” The expression “שלח” is also used for a weapon, a kind of sword or dagger, used in personal combat. It appears in that sense in Job 33,18: מעבור בשלח, “from perishing by the sword,” or in Song of Songs 4,13: שלחתיך פרדס, “your offshoot will be pomegranate;” if understood as in Song of Songs, the brothers themselves brought Joseph’s blood drenched and ripped up garment to their father. They did so in order to have an excuse for getting their father to exclaim that Joseph had become the victim of a ferocious beast, (as he did).

!הכר, “know!” Yehudah was the brother who said this to his father; this is why he was the one charged with causing his father this anguish (losing a son, so that he lost two sons) This interpretation may be understood more literally, i.e. why Tamar when about to be burned at the stake for supposedly having committed adultery used the same wording when asking her father-in-law and judge: הכר נא למי החותמת, “please identify whom this signet ring belongs!” (Genesis 38,25) (Based on B’reshit Rabbah, 84,19)

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat to their father.” According to the plain meaning of the text the messengers presented the coat to Yaakov. This is why the Torah phrases the handing over as accompanied by such an impersonal sounding statement as: “this is what we have found, please identify if this is the coat of your son?” If the brothers had brought the coat to Yaakov themselves they would have said: “is this Joseph’s coat?” The implication in all this was that if some robbers had killed Joseph, surely they would have retained such a precious garment as the striped coat. Other commentators understand the wording of the Torah here as applying to the brothers themselves. In support of their view they cite the words ויביאו אל אביהם, “they brought (it) to their father.” According to this view, the Torah highlighted the cruelty of the brothers’ conduct vis-a-vis their father.

וישלחו, some of the brothers were the messengers who delivered this tattered blood-spattered tunic. Some commentators believe that the word is derived from Job 36,12 בשלח יעברו, “they will die by the sword.” According to this, the brothers imitated the incisions made by the sharp teeth of wild beasts so that Yaakov would think that Joseph’s fate had been that he had been devoured or at least killed by such a marauding animal.

הכר נא, According to Bereshit Rabbah 84,19 G’d repaid Yehudah for his use of the phrase הכר נא when tricking his father into making a false deduction, by Tamar challenging him with the very same expression הכר נא, which embarrassed him into admitting that he was the father of the fetus that Tamar his daughter-in-law was pregnant with (38,25)

AND THEY SENT THE COAT OF MANY COLORS, AND THEY BROUGHT IT TO THEIR FATHER. I.e., by command. (Ramban’s intent is to resolve the following difficulty: The verse, And they sent the coat of many colors, clearly indicates that they did not bring it themselves. Ramban answers that the second half of the verse means that they commanded others to bring the coat to their father.) Perhaps the word vayavi’u (and they brought) refers to the messengers who brought the coat, for the brothers dispatched it when they were still in Dothan, and it was the messengers who said, This we have found; recognize now. It may be that they sent the coat to Hebron, to one of their homes, and when they arrived they brought it before their father, and said to him, This we have found. They did all of this in order to feign ignorance of the matter, for had they remained quiet, he would have suspected them, saying; “You killed him,” for he knew that they were jealous of him. And some scholars (Mentioned in R’dak in the name of “some” scholars.) explain the word vayeshalchu — ordinarily translated as “and they sent” — to mean that they pierced the coat with a sword in order to tear it in many places, to give the appearance of having been torn by the teeth of animals. The word vayeshalchu would thus be derived from the verse, By the sword (‘b’shelach’) they shall perish. (Job 36:12.) The significance of the word hapasim (many colors) is that they sent him the coat so that he might recognize it by the colors which he had made for him.

וישלחו, by means of human messengers who would not identify themselves, saying only: “this is what we have found!”

Sie schickten den Rock nicht direkt, sondern ließen ihn durch andere erst in andere Häuser und dann erst zum Vater kommen.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים, they brought it with a dagger, shelach, to show that the tears in the tunic corresponded to those made by the sharp teeth of a wild beast.

They sent the fine tunic to Jacob, and they brought it to their father and they said: We found this. Identify now: Is it your son’s tunic or not? Clearly this is a fine tunic, but is it Joseph’s? We never paid attention to the details of his tunic, but since you made it, you must recognize it.

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם, “they sent the striped coat and brought it to their father.” Either they instructed the bearer to bring it to their father, or the bearers brought it to their father without having had specific instructions. It is also possible that they sent the coat home, and when they came home the next time [after all, Dotan is over 70 km from Chevron. Ed.] they themselves brought it to their father. The Torah emphasizes the striped coat, as the stripes would help to identify who had worn it.

Joseph's brothers say to their father: "recognise whether this is the coat of your son or not." (Genesis 37,32) We are told to remember what Amalek did to us. (Deut. 25,17) We are told not to fear nations surrounding us. (Deut 7,18-21) Since we are human beings, not just animals, it is expected that we can refine certain characteristics, are not limited to instinctive reactions. If one can learn to compensate for the weakness of certain of one's senses, then surely one can find means to reinforce certain character traits. A blind man develops a more acute sense of hearing. A shortsighted person can improve his vision by the use of spectacles. A person suffering from certain character weaknesses must also find means to compensate for this. Using one's power of imagination, one can imagine situations that make one's phobias seem unjustified and ridiculous. The process of thought association with specific objects is known to be an excellent memory jogger. These aids must be applied when we are asked to observe certain commandments involving remembrances. Seeing the tzitzit reminds us of other mitzvot such as kilayim, forbidden mixtures. This has been discussed at greater length in chapter sixty five. Awareness of the importance of memory joggers may have led some prophets to find common denominators for certain mitzvot, and thus make it easy for us to have these short summaries constantly at our command. Isaiah manages to condense Torah into two slogans, "observe justice and perform righteousness." (chapter 56) Chabakuk manages to sum it up in a single slogan, "the righteous will live by his faith" (2,4). No doubt the purpose of these apparent over simplifications is simply to provide a constant reminder, which when triggered will remind us of all the other mitzvot which are incumbent upon us to perform. When the Talmud (Ketuvot 30) tells us that all is in the hands of Heaven except the contracting of colds and heatstrokes, we know very well that both those phenomena are natural phenomena and as such not subject to our control. In fact, no remedy has yet been found for the common cold. Nevertheless, the sages are telling us that if one falls victim to those two ailments, this is due to negligence on the part of man, to wilful over-exposure etc, and cannot be blamed on outside forces. Just as one can control colds and heatstrokes, so, by employing memory properly, one can reinforce one's senses of trust and confidence in the help of G'd, no matter what the circumstances. This is what David said (Psalms 27,1) "The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear?, The Lord is the source of my strength, of whom shall I be afraid?" He means that if his attitude is based on remembering G'ds many past acts of kindness and assistance, why would he be afraid of anyone in the future? In the same vein, Moses tells the people: "you are today about to cross the Jordan in order to dispossess people greater and more powerful than you etc." (9,1). This calls for faith and confidence based on the recollection of all the past triumphs achieved through Divine intervention. The foremost memory jogger is the keriyat shema, which for that reason has been included in our daily prayers three times. We will examine the passage in detail to gain a better understanding of its significance. The following questions suggest themselves:

Rabbi Yehuda said that for this trembling that Jacob brought upon Isaac his father, Jacob was punished by Joseph, and he trembled when they said to him "This we have found" (Beresheet 37:32). Isaac said "Who then (Heb. אֵיפֹה)." And by "אֵיפֹה," Jacob was punished. And although the Holy One, blessed be He, approved all the blessings, nevertheless he was punished by "eifoh" as it is written, "Where (אֵיפֹה) they feed their flock" (Beresheet 37:6), where Joseph was lost to him, and he was thereby punished. "...and Isaac trembled very much (lit. 'trembled very great trembling')." What is the meaning of the word "great" as used in the scripture? It is written "great" here and elsewhere, as in "and this great fire" (Devarim 18:16). (Meaning) that Gehenom entered with him. What does "very" mean? It is written "very" here and elsewhere, as in "and, behold, it was very good" (Beresheet 1:31), referring to the Angel of Death. He then said "Who then..." (Beresheet 27:33), when he understood that the blessings belonged to Jacob and not Esau.

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Another matter, “vekorbano…” – what did the princes see that led them to present offerings in this manner? The Rabbis say: Even though each of them presented an identical offering, they offered it regarding significant matters, and each and every one presented according to his perspective. Naḥshon began and presented regarding the protocol of the monarchy, just as his father crowned him over his brothers, just as it says: “Judah, you, your brothers will acknowledge you…[your father's sons will prostrate themselves to you]. Judah is a lion cub…” (Genesis 49:8–9). Likewise it says: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers, as the prince would come from him” (I Chronicles 5:2). There was a tradition in the hand of the tribe of Judah, their Sages, and their prominent leaders, from Jacob our patriarch, regarding everything that is destined to befall each tribe until the messianic era. Likewise, there was a tradition in the hand of each and every tribe regarding what would befall it until the messianic era, from Jacob their father. “Vekorbano…” – he presented the dish and the basin corresponding to the kings of the house of David, who are destined to emerge from him, who ruled over the entire world, over the sea and over the land, e.g., Solomon and the messianic king. Solomon, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “For he ruled over the entire region beyond the river, from Tifsaḥ to Gaza” (I Kings 5:4). Rav and Shmuel, one said Tifsaḥ is at one end of the world and Gaza is at the other end of the world. One said: They stand adjacent to one another; just as he ruled over Tifsaḥ and over Gaza, so he ruled over the entire world. And it says: “All the world sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom…. Each would bring his tribute…” (I Kings 10:24–25). From where is it derived that he ruled over the sea? It is as it is written: “Also the fleet of Hiram, which had carried gold from Ophir…” (I Kings 10:11). “For the king had a fleet of Tarshish at sea with the fleet of Hiram. Once every three years…” (I Kings 10:22). And it says: “I will set his hand upon the seas, his right on the rivers” (Psalms 89:26). The messianic king, from where is it derived? It is, as it is written: "He will rule from sea to sea, from the river to the ends of the land" (Psalms 72:8). Over the land, from where is it derived? It is as it is written: “And all the kings, all the nations will bow to him, will serve him” (Psalms 72:11). And it says: “And behold, among the clouds of the heavens…. To him was given dominion, [honor, and kingship, and all the peoples, nations, and languages would serve him]” (Daniel 7:13–14). “The stone that struck the image became a great mountain, and filled the entire earth” (Daniel 2:35). This is why he presented a dish, corresponding to the sea that surrounds the entire world and resembles a dish. Why was “its weight one hundred and thirty”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because when the Holy One blessed be He gathered all the waters to one place on the third day of the formation of the world, he called them seas, as it is stated: “And to the gathering of the waters, He called seas [yamim]” (Genesis 1:10). The numerical value of yamim is one hundred; yod, yod are twenty, mem, mem are eighty, that is one hundred. Solomon came and added a sea to the construction of the Temple in which the priests could immerse themselves, just as it says: “He crafted the sea, of cast metal, ten cubits from brim to brim, [circular around, and its height was five cubits; a thirty-cubit line would wrap around it]” (I Kings 7:23). Corresponding to those thirty cubits that was the circumference of the sea that Solomon crafted, he added thirty shekels to the weight of the dish corresponding to the sea of Solomon. That is one hundred and thirty shekels, the weight of the dish, corresponding to the seas and to the sea of Solomon. “One silver basin” (Numbers 7:13), it is corresponding to the world, that is shaped like an orb that is tossed from hand to hand. Why was its weight “seventy shekels”? (Numbers 7:13). It is because both of them (Solomon and the Messianic king.) ruled over seventy nations, which exist from one end of the world to the other end. From where is it derived that the sea is shaped in the form of a dish and the world is shaped like an orb? It is like that which we learned: The Rabbis say: Only one that has in its hand a staff, a bird, an orb, a dish, a sword, a crown, or a ring is forbidden. (A statue of a person in whose hands one of these objects appears is considered an idol, and it is forbidden to benefit from it in any way.) A staff, as it rules the entire world with it. A bird: “My hand has grasped the riches of the peoples like a nest” (Isaiah 10:14). An orb, as the world is shaped like an orb. Rabbi Yona said: Alexander of Macedonia, when he sought to ascend heavenward, he would rise and rise until he would see the world as an orb and the sea as a dish. That is why, when they draw him, it is with an orb in his hand. Should they draw him with a dish in his hand? He does not have dominion over the sea. But the Holy One blessed be He has dominion over the sea and has dominion over the land, recues at sea and rescues on land; that is why they brought a dish corresponding to the sea and a basin corresponding to the land. “Both of them full [of high quality flour]" (Numbers 7:13), as the nation brought tributes [menaḥot] (The word menahot can also refer to meal offerings, which typically consist of high quality flour.) to Solomon; likewise they are destined to bring it to the messianic king, just as it says: “[The kings of Tarshish and of the islands will bring tribute [minḥa]]; the kings of Sheba and Seva will offer gifts” (Psalms 72:10). “Full [mele’im]” means nothing other than gifts, just as it says: “And gave them all [vaymalum] to the king” (I Samuel 18:27). “High quality flour [solet]" (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: "valued [hamesulaim] like gold" (Lamentations 4:2). "Mixed with oil” (Numbers 7:13), just as it says: “A good name is better than fragrant oil” (Ecclesiastes 7:1), and it says: “Your name is like poured oil” (Song of Songs 1:3), as their good name would go forth throughout the world. Why were they of silver? It is just as it says: “The tongue of the righteous is choice silver” (Proverbs 10:20). “One gold ladle, ten shekels, [full of incense]” (Numbers 7:14), corresponding to the ten generations from Peretz to David, as it is stated: “These are the generations of Peretz: [Peretz begot Hetzron]; and Hetzron begot [Ram, and Ram begot Aminadav;] Aminadav begot Naḥshon, [and Naḥshon begot Salmon; Salmon begot Boaz, and Boaz begot Oved]; and Oved begot [Yishai], and Yishai begot David” (Ruth 4:18–22). “One…ladle,” as they were all like one hand, all full-fledged righteous men. That is, “full of incense” (Numbers 7:14), as their actions were pleasant like the fragrance of the incense. “One young bull” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Abraham, who was the primary progenitor, and who, in his regard, it is stated: “Abraham ran to the cattle [and took a young bull]” (Genesis 18:7). “One ram” (Numbers 7:15), this is Isaac, as, in his regard it is stated: “He took the ram and he offered it up as a burnt offering in place of his son” (Genesis 22:13). “One sheep” (Numbers 7:15), corresponding to Jacob, in whose regard it is stated: “Jacob separated the sheep” (Genesis 30:40). “One goat as a sin offering” (Numbers 7:16), corresponding to Judah, who brought Joseph’s fine tunic that he had immersed in the blood of the goat, as it is stated: “They slaughtered a goat [and they dipped the tunic in the blood]" (Genesis 37:31). Judah brought it to his father and said: “Identify this, please, is it your son’s tunic?” (Genesis 37:32). That is why it was meted to him with the same measure, as Tamar said to him: “Identify, please, whose signet, belt, [and staff are these?]” (Genesis 38:25). That is why sin offering is stated in this regard, as they brought it as atonement for him, because he brought anguish to his father. “And for the peace offering [hashelamim], two cattle” (Numbers 7:17) – these are David and Solomon, as they initiated the monarchy, as cattle [bakar] is nothing other than an expression of monarchy, just as it says: “Butter of cattle [bakar] and milk of sheep…” (Deuteronomy 32:14), and we translate it: Give them the plunder of their kings. (Targum Onkelos on the verse. Shelamim) , because they were full-fledged righteous men, (Shelamim is expounded as though it is written shelemim, complete.) and in their days, Israel were flawless [mushlamim], and in the days of Solomon, the kingdom was complete [shelema], as it is stated: “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chronicles 29:23). The two of them built the Temple; David made the foundation, and Solomon built it. “Five rams, five goats, five sheep in their first year” (Numbers 7:17) – these are fifteen corresponding to the fifteen kings who were from Reḥavam until Zedekiah, king son of a king. Some were full-fledged righteous men, some were middling, and some were full-fledged wicked men. “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav” (Numbers 7:17). When the Holy One blessed be He saw that he presented his offering corresponding to the order of the patriarchs and the royal dynasty, He began lauding his offering: “This was the offering of Naḥshon son of Aminadav.”

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

“She was taken out, and she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man to whom these belong I am with child. She said: Identify, please, whose signet, and belt, and staff these are” (Genesis 38:25). “She was taken out [mutzet]…” – Rabbi Yudan said: [It may be derived] from here that [Judah’s items] were lost, and the Holy One blessed be He provided [himtzi] her with others in their place, just as it says: “Or found [matza] a lost item…” (Leviticus 5:22). Rav Huna said: “She was taken out” – he and she should be taken out. (This is expounded from the fact that “she [hi]” is spelled heh vav alef, which can also be read “he [hu].” The point is that just as she would ostensibly be killed for her violation, so would the man with whom she had committed adultery. ) “She sent to her father-in-law, saying…[identify, please [haker na]…]” – he sought to deny it. She said to him: ‘Acknowledge now [haker na] your Creator; they belong to you and your Creator.’ (This is because the items had been miraculously recreated after they were lost, as explained above (Yefe To’ar). ) “Identify, please, whose signet” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said to your father: “Identify, please” (Genesis 37:32); as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please.”’

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

R. Yohanan’s argument focuses on the use of the same word in two different contexts within the extended narrative of the Yosef story. The first place this word appears is when the brothers come to Yaakov to inform him of Yosef’s “death.” They do not actually tell Yaakov that Yosef has been killed. Instead, they “sent the striped coat, and they brought it to their father, and they said, ‘This we have found. Recognize (‘haker’), please, is this the coat of your son or not?’” (Genesis 37:32) The second use of the word occurs when Tamar, about to be burned for her “sin,” “…sent to her father-in-law saying, ‘By the man to whom these belong I have conceived’; and she said, ‘Recognize (‘haker’), please, whose these are, the signet ring, the belt, and the staff.’” (The parallels between the verses do not end with the presence of the word haker (recognize) in both of them. The phrase in which the word occurs is identical in both verses: “Recognize, please…” and in both verses the objects to be identified are sent to the person being questioned.)

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

The linen tunic is the merit of Yaakov, who experienced pain over the tunic of many colors. The linen pants represent the merit of Yosef who kept the holy covenant, and the linen sash is in the merit of Moshe who includes and encompasses all of Israel like a sash. The linen turban represents the merit of Aharon.

קחו שעיר עזים, “take a he-goat as a sin offering to atone for your sins, etc;” they had to pray for atonement for what their forefathers had done to Joseph, when they had sent his tunic soaked in the blood they had taken from the heg-oat they slaughtered for that purpose. (Genesis 37, 31-32) (Sifra) An alternate explanation: They needed to offer a sin offering for idolatry they had been guilty by burning he goats for idols. (in Egypt) (Tanchuma, section 4 on this portion) We find that also on other occasions such animals were burned in idolatrous rites outside the camp. (Torat Kohanim, chovah chapter 6,5.) This is why this he-goat was burned outside the camp, as we are told in verse 11.

How does the Torah signal intertextuality? Often it does so by using the same word or words in two passages. A classic example is the phrase haker na, “please recognise,” used in both Genesis 37 and 38 to link the story of Joseph’s brothers and the bloodstained cloak they show their father, with that of Tamar and her father-in-law Judah. (Gen. 37:32; 38:25. These are the only two places in Tanakh where the phrase appears. For the significance of the connection, see Genesis Rabba 84:19; David Daube, Studies in Biblical Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (London: George Allen and Unwin), 1981. )

The rabbis also notice that Yehudah’s recognition of his own belongings (Bereshit 38:26) (Bereshit 38:26.) is couched in the same language that the brothers used in showing Yosef’s bloodied clothing to their father, Ya’akov (Bereshit 37:32). (Ibid., 37:32.) This additional observation sets up a powerful contrast between the two episodes (Bereshit Rabba 85:11). (Bereshit Rabba 85:11.)

The verse continues: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff” (Genesis 38:25). Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: With use of the word discern Judah informed his father that Joseph was lost, and also with use of the word discern they informed Judah about the signs. The Gemara explains: With the word discern he informed Jacob his father when he brought him the coat of Joseph and said to his father: “And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said: This have we found. Discern now whether it is your son’s coat or not” (Genesis 37:32). With the word discern they informed him: “And she said: Discern, please, whose are these.”

They sent the long, colorful coat and brought it to their father, and said, We found this. Please [Now] identify it. Is it your son’s coat or not?

And they sent it by the hand of the sons of Zilpha and of the sons of Bilhah the figured garment; and they brought it to their father, and said, This have we found; know now, whether it be thy son's garment, or not.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has eaten him;” for if he had fallen into the hands of robbers they would not have left the striped coat behind.

A wicked beast devoured him; Joseph was truly devoured. It is possible that the Holy Spirit alluded to it in his mouth, and the intention is that, just as the Holy Spirit is directed, so was the wicked beast Potiphar's wife, who was possessed by the evil inclination. She was intensely involved in every possible way to ensnare Joseph because the redemption of Israel and the rectification of Adam's sin depended on him. If, God forbid, Joseph would sin, the world would be destroyed. The adversary sought to tempt him doubly, and the rest of the nations hoped to see Joseph fail, God forbid. However, God did not forsake him, and he was saved. It was a rectification for Adam's sin and the salvation of Israel from exile. But this wicked beast, an evil thought, God associates with the action, and it is considered as if a wicked beast devoured him. But the truth is, Joseph was truly devoured, tormented and afflicted, even though he later ended up in prison, as our sages have said. But after all the torment, Joseph remained righteous, firm in his faith, and was saved by the mercy of God.

WITHOUT DOUBT TORN IN PIECES. Toraf (torn) is a pu’al. The tet is vocalized with a cholam (Rather than a kubbutz as is the rule in the pu’al. Hence the reading toraf rather than turaf.) because it precedes a resh which cannot receive a dagesh. (All middle root letters in the pu’al receive a dagesh. However, the resh cannot receive a dagesh; thus the preceding vowel changes from a kubbutz to a cholam.) Morak (It, too, is a pu’al, and because the middle letter is a resh the preceding letter is vocalized with a cholam.) (scoured) in it shall be scoured (u-morek), and rinsed in water (Lev. 6:21) is similar.

טרוף טורף יוסף, "Joseph has been torn to shreds!" Jacob meant that Joseph had endured a twofold tearing (this is why Jacob said טרף twice). 1) A wild beast had torn him and killed him. 2) That animal had dragged him to its lair; as a result of this even a search for his remains was futile and he, Jacob, could not even bury his body. Were it not for this interpretation why did Jacob not organise a search for Joseph's remains? The brothers were clever enough to stress: "this we have found, examine please, etc." They made it plain to Jacob that they had not even found any bones.

כתונת בני, “the coat of my son!” He meant: “this is the coat of my son.” חיה רעה אכלתהו,“a wild beast has devoured him.” According to the plain meaning of the text he meant: “had robbers slain him they would have taken the coat. Therefore it must have been a beast.” According to Bereshit Rabbah (84,10) Yaakov had a flash of insight seeing in his mind’s eye that Joseph would become provoked by the wife of Potiphar. We may be permitted the question that if G’d granted him such a flash of insight, why did He not reveal to him that Joseph was alive? Our sages answered this by saying that the brothers had all made a solemn agreement that whosoever would reveal what happened to Yaakov would be ostracised. They had included G’d in that agreement, i.e. they did specifically impose silence even on G’d (compare Pirke d'Rabbi Eliezer 38). In order to make such a weird sounding statement more plausible, let us consider the following. There were nine brothers present at the time the sale took place (Binyamin and Reuven were absent. Joseph, as the victim was not part of this agreement). In order to make such a solemn oath or agreement legally valid a quorum of ten adult males was required. They had decided to make G’d the tenth member of that quorum (not that they “forbade” G’d to reveal to Yaakov what He saw fit to reveal). If you find this concept difficult to accept, consider, if you will that when Avraham prayed for the cities of Sodom, etc. to be saved if they contained a certain number of righteous individuals, he asked if G’d would spare them if He could find there forty-five such people. Why did he mention the number 45, and not 35, 25, or 15? He began with he number 50 to say that if there could be found a quorum of ten good people in each of the five towns under threat of extinction G’d should spare the town on account of them. In mentioning the number 45, he assumed that if each of these towns would have only nine righteous men G’d would be willing to make up the missing tenth and thus He would complement the required number (Genesis 18,28 according to Rashi). If you were to reject this comparison saying that whereas Avraham wanted to make G’d a partner in order to save a town, in this instance the brothers made G’d their partner in a destructive scheme, remember that their objective was not a nefarious one. Their objective all along had been to preserve the people of Israel and the honour of G’d as they considered how Yaakov would curse all of them if he became aware of what they had done to his favourite son. If the sons and family of Yaakov would perish, who would proclaim the name and glory of G’d in the world? The situation which would then come about is similar to the one mentioned in Joshua 7,9 when Joshua felt that the Israelites were threatened by the defeat they had suffered at the hands of the little town of Ai, and he implored G’d to reverse this defeat. He said: והכיתו את שמנו מן הארץ ומה תעשה לשמך הגדול, “and they will wipe out our name from the land and then what will You do to promote Your great name?” On account of these considerations the brothers had felt justified in including G’d Himself in their scheme. Incidentally, we find that Moses also included G’d and his heavenly tribunal at the time he received the Torah. You might ask that seeing the sages (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) have told us that Yitzchak knew that Joseph was alive but decided not to reveal this to his son Yaakov as he felt that G’d must have had a good reason if He Himself had not revealed it to him, whence did Yitzchak have his information? We must obviously conclude that G’d had told Yitzchak. He also told Binyamin that Joseph was alive. We know this (compare Bereshit Rabbah 71,8) because the gem on Aaron’s breastplate which represented the tribe of Binyamin was the ישפה, which may be read as יש פה, “there is a mouth”. The Midrash implies that though Binyamin was not included in that solemn undertaking of the nine brothers and he could have told his father that Joseph was alive without violating that pact, he decided to keep his mouth shut as he appreciated the motivations which had guided his brothers when making such a pact, and he too did not want to take the chance that his father would curse the brothers.

ויאמר כתנת בני AND HE SAID, MY SON’S COAT —is this (i.e. supply the words היא זו after בני).

חיה רעה אכלתהו AN EVIL BEAST HATH EATEN HIM — The spirit of prophecy was enkindled within him, for these words may be taken to mean that at some future time Potiphar’s wife would attack him (Genesis Rabbah 84:19). Why did not the Holy One, blessed be He, make known to him (Jacob) that he was still living? Because they had placed under a ban and a curse anyone of them who would make it known, and they made the Holy One, blessed be He, a party with them to this agreement (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayeshev 2) Isaac, however, knew that he was living, but he thought, “How dare I reveal it since the Holy One, blessed be He does not wish to reveal it” (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

אכלתהו vergegenwärtigt ihm den Verlust, טרוף טורף das Entsetzliche des Vorgangs, — er sieht den Sohn, das geliebte Kind, den blühenden Jüngling in den fletschenden Zähnen des Raubtieres: zerrissen, zerrissen ist Josef worden! Siehe jedoch zu Schmot 22, 30 eigentlich: zum Fraß genommen.

Is this. It is an abbreviated verse. For without [adding] “is this,” it is not understandable.

It is his destiny that Potiphar’s wife would provoke him... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Scripture should have written, “Yoseif has been torn to pieces,” [omitting “evil beast had devoured him”]. Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: How would Yaakov know that a wild animal tore him up? Perhaps bandits attacked him.

Because they banned and cursed anyone who would reveal it and they included God with them... Hashem surely was not “forced” [as it were]. But He willingly agreed with the ban for a number of reasons. First, so that [the decree of] “Your descendants will be foreigners in a land not theirs...” (15:13) could be fulfilled. If Yaakov had known that Yoseif was brought to Egypt, he would have given all the money in the world to redeem him! Second, if Yaakov had known [what the brothers did] he would have cursed them that their names be blotted out, and the seed of Yisrael would have perished — whereas Hashem wanted them to be fruitful and multiply. As Rashi proceeds to explain, “Hashem does not wish to reveal it to him,” implying that He was not forced. Had He wished, He could have revealed it, but He agreed with them in order to fulfill the decree, “...They will enslave them and oppress them” (ibid). Third, it says: “He mourned his son for many days” (v. 24), and Rashi explains that it was twenty-two years. Why did Rashi say specifically twenty-two? He must have been answering the question: Why did Hashem put Yaakov in anguish for twenty-two years, and not tell him [that Yoseif was alive]? Perforce, it was for the twenty-two years that Yaakov did not honor his parents. Whereas if Hashem would tell Yaakov, he would repent, nullifying the twentytwo year decree of anguish. But because Hashem wished to punish him for not having honored his parents, He agreed to the brothers’ ban on revealing it. A ban (חרם) is like an oath, and when Hashem takes an oath [over a decree of punishment], repentance cannot nullify it. For it says [about Moshe’s punishment]: “Therefore, you will not bring this congregation into the land that I have given them” (Bamidbar 20:12). And Rashi there explains: “This was said as an oath... He swore precipitously, so that he should not pray at length about it [to nullify the decree].” Here as well, the ban was like an oath; thus Hashem agreed with them.

He identified it, and said: This is my son’s tunic; clearly an evil beast devoured him; Joseph was mauled. The brothers told Jacob that they discovered only the tunic. They found no traces of Joseph’s body, as the wild beast would have dragged it to its lair. Since the animal would not consume the tunic, it was left and therefore recovered.

חיה רעה אכלתהו, “a wild beast has devoured him.” He did not say that robbers had slain him, for if so they would have robbed him of his precious tunic.

“A savage beast devoured him” [37:33]. Jacob recognized it and said: a wild animal certainly devoured Joseph. If robbers had killed him, they would have taken away the tunic. The Midrash says that he saw prophetically that Potiphar’s wife would cast aspersions on Joseph and he would be thrown in prison. (Genesis Rabbah, 84.19.) Bahya writes. Why did the Holy One not say to Jacob that Joseph was still alive? The explanation is that his nine brothers put a ban on anyone who would tell that Joseph was sold; he should be cursed. They joined the Holy One to their group so that there should be a quorum of ten, so that the ban should be strong. Abraham did the same thing with regard to Sodom. He wanted to join the Holy One to nine righteous people, who together with the Holy One would be ten righteous ones and should protect a city in which there would be ten righteous ones. If you want to ask, the Holy One would not join with the children for evil, that they wanted to make a ban not to tell Jacob. The explanation is that there was no evil. The Holy One joined the ban, since if Jacob had heard that his children had sold Joseph he would have cursed them that they should be taken from this world, heaven forbid. Therefore, the Holy One joined with them. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:33.)

Words in the mouths of leaders and followers have a dark side in the Bible as well; littered across its pages are many words of deception and recrimination. We open Genesis with the snake lying to Eve, and Eve lying to Adam. Later, Jacob’s stilted conversation with his father when he dressed as his brother to steal the blessing pains the reader with its manipulation: “I am Esau, your first-born” (Gen. 27:19). Isaac did not immediately accept this self-identification: “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau…. Are you really my son Esau?” (Gen. 27:22, 24). At this juncture, Jacob could have raised his hands in self-disgust and confessed. Instead he hammered the lie in deeper. “I am.” Still later in Genesis, Jacob tasted the impact of lies in bitter recriminations. Joseph’s brothers turned up at Jacob’s door with a coat dipped in animal blood, asking the not-so-innocent question: “We found this. Please examine it; is it your son’s tunic or not?” (Gen. 37:33). They knew exactly whose coat it was, but they let an object tell their lie; a gift of love came back to Jacob as a prop of deception. His sons wounded their father with words in stabbing convulsions of loss.

14. I will describe the distress that calls me. He hit me with three blows this month. He cut me down, prevented me, hit me. Even now, He wears me out. He depressed me on the Eighth, right and left. Did I not establish fasts on all three of the days? And the Greek king forced me to write my religion in Greek. "Those who plow use my back to plow, they make the furrow long." I fumed on the Ninth with deep-dug shame. He removed from me the cloak of glory and alacrity. The one who had said beautiful words was torn apart on that day. This was Ezra the Scribe. (Ezekiel) Ben Buzi the Visionary was commanded about the Tenth day. He wrote for You in his book of visions. For a remembrance for a nation who is melted and disgraced. "This very day." The count of the monthly calendar was awakened against me. I stretch out my mouth with dirges and wailing. The order of the tragedies will burn in my heart. When "the refugee came to me saying the city had been hit." About these, I throw dirt on my face. I have been wounded by these four things- if only I had shot an arrow into my heart! In distress over these, I dig myself a grave. "God is justified, because I transgressed his word." I called Your name, the One comforted about my evil doings. See my suffering, hear the voice of my supplication. Listen to my pleas, quicken my salvation. "Do not shut your ear to my cry for ease, to my appeal." In the month of Tevet I was very hard-hit. The order of its celestial paths were changed against me. I rebelled, I violated, but let Him reveal His goodness to me. The One who tells the sea, "You may come up until here."

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

“He sent the dove from him, to see if the water abated from upon the surface of the ground” (Genesis 8:8). “But the dove did not find rest for its foot, and it returned to him to the ark, as water was upon the surface of the entire earth; and he extended his hand and took it, and brought it to him to the ark” (Genesis 8:9). “He sent the dove…but the dove did not find rest…” – Yehuda bar Naḥman said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Had it found rest, it would not have returned. Similarly, “it (The people of Israel.) dwells among the nations, finding no rest” (Lamentations 1:3) – had it found rest, it would never have returned [from exile]. Similarly, “and among these nations you will not be calm, and there will be no rest…” (Deuteronomy 28:65) – but had it (The people of Israel.) found rest they would never have returned. “He waited yet another seven days and again sent the dove from the ark. The dove came to him at evening time, and behold, it had a plucked olive leaf in its mouth; and Noah knew that the water had abated from upon the earth” (Genesis 8:10–11). “He waited yet another seven days” – Rabbi Yosei said: There were three sets of seven days. (There was a seven-day period between the sending of the raven and the first sending of the dove, though that is not mentioned in the verses, in addition to the two seven-day periods between the three times the dove was sent.) And again sent the dove from the ark…the dove came to him…plucked [taraf]…in its mouth” – what is taraf? “Killed,” (The plucking of the leaf led to the tree’s death.) just as you say: “Joseph had been mauled [tarof toraf]” (Genesis 37:33). He said to it: Had you left it, it would have become a great tree. From where did it [the dove] bring it [the leaf]? (Given that the entire surface of the earth had been destroyed.) It was from the branches in the Land of Israel that it brought it. Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the Mount of Olives, as the Land of Israel was not inundated in the Flood. That is what the Holy One blessed be He said to Ezekiel: “It is a land that has not been purified, that was not rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rav Beivai said: The gates of the Garden of Eden opened up before it, and it brought it [from there]. Rabbi Abbahu said: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, would it not have brought an item of greater excellence, either cinnamon or balsam? It is, rather, that it was alluding to a lesson for him. It was saying to Noah: Better this bitter item, and not something sweet dependent upon your hand. (Through the allusion of the dove with the olive leaf, God implied that it is better for a person to work for his own sustenance, even if he can afford only bitter food, than to receive sweet food as a handout. ) “He waited yet another seven days and sent the dove, and it did not return again to him anymore” (Genesis 8:12). “He waited yet another seven days” – this supports what Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: There were three sets of seven days; “He…sent the dove, and it did not return again to him anymore.”

“Joseph dreamed a dream, and he told it to his brothers; and they hated him even more” (Genesis 37:5). “He said to them: Please, hear this dream that I dreamed” (Genesis 37:6). “Joseph dreamed a dream.… He said to them: Please [na], hear” – he said: In this manner the prophets will rebuke you: “Hear now [na] what the Lord is saying” (Micah 6:1) “Behold, we were binding sheaves in the field, and behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around and prostrated themselves to my sheaf” (Genesis 37:7). “Behold, we were binding sheaves” – you were reaping produce, and I was reaping produce; yours would rot, and mine would keep. “And behold, my sheaf [alumati] arose and also stood upright” – Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Aḥa: Rabbi Levi said: You are destined to craft mute [ilmim] idols before Yerovam’s calves, and say: “This is your god, Israel” (Exodus 32:4). (See I Samuel 12:28.) Rabbi Aḥa said: You are destined to conceal matters about me before our father, saying: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:20). What will stand in my favor? It is mother’s silence. (This is a reference to Rachel’s silence when Laban gave Jacob Leah in her place.) “And behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright, and behold, your sheaves gathered around” – this corresponds to the five times that they are destined to prostrate themselves to him. (The words binding, sheaf, and sheaves, all have the Hebrew root alef-lamed-mem, which appears five times in this verse. ) “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us; will you have dominion over us? They hated him even more, for his dreams and for his words” (Genesis 37:8). “His brothers said to him: Will you reign over us” – Rabi Levi and Rabbi Simon: One said: Because they answered him begrudgingly, that is why he produced wicked ones. (Because they did not want Joseph’s descendants to rule over them, the kings he produced, Yerovam and Ahab, were wicked (Etz Yosef). ) One said: Because they answered him with a double expression, that is why he produced kings. (The fact that they said, even rhetorically, that he would both reign and have dominion caused his descendants to become kings. )

“Reuben returned to the pit, and behold, Joseph was not in the pit, and he rent his garments” (Genesis 37:29). “Reuben returned to the pit” – where had he been? Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Eliezer said: In his sackcloth and his fasting. (He was preoccupied with his repentance for his action involving Bilha (Genesis 35:22).) When he was free, he went and peered into that pit. That is what is written: “Reuben returned to the pit.” The Holy One blessed be He said to him: ‘A person has never sinned before Me and repented, and you are the first to initiate repentance. As you live, your descendant will arise and be the first to initiate repentance.’ (He will be the first to teach about the full power of repentance, such as the fact that repentance out of love can cause one’s sins to be considered as merits (Yefe To’ar). ) Who is that? It is Hosea, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God” (Hosea 14:2). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). “They took Joseph’s tunic, and slaughtered a goat” – why a goat? Because its blood is similar to that of man. “They sent the fine tunic, and they brought it to their father and said: We found this. Identify, please: Is it your son’s tunic or not” (Genesis 37:32). “They sent the fine tunic…” – Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The Holy One blessed be He said to Judah: ‘You said: “Identify, please”; as you live, Tamar will say to you: “Identify, please”’ (Genesis 38:25). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him; Joseph has been mauled” (Genesis 37:33). “He identified it and said: My son’s tunic” – he said: I do not know what I am seeing. (Jacob was used to a high level of perception, fueled by the Divine Spirit. But from this incident until he reunited with Joseph, that clarity left him, and he was unsure of the exact facts or full ramifications of what he was seeing (Maharzu). ) “My son’s tunic! A savage beast devoured him…” – Rav Huna said: The Divine Spirit flashed in him: “A savage beast devoured him” – this is Potifar’s wife. (Rav Huna explains that although Jacob himself was unsure what had occurred, he said something that alluded to future events (Maharzu). )

“My lord asked his servants, saying: Do you have a father or a brother?” (Genesis 44:19). “My lord asked his servants…” – [Judah] said to him: ‘From the outset you came against us with malice. How many countries descended to Egypt to purchase food? But you did not ask [this of] any of them. Did we, perhaps, come to take our daughter, or are you planning to marry our sister? Nevertheless, we hid nothing from you.’ [Joseph] said to him: ‘I see that you are a prattler. Is there among your brothers a prattler like you?’ (Why are you the only one of the brothers talking? According to Tanḥuma (Vayigash 5), Joseph claimed that he knew through divination that Judah was not the oldest of the brothers, and therefore it was even more surprising that he was doing all the talking. ) [Judah] said to him: ‘All this that you see is because I became a guarantor for him.’ [Joseph] said to him: ‘Why did you not do so on behalf of your brother when you sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty silver pieces, and you brought anguish to your father and said to him: “Joseph was mauled”?’ (Genesis 37:33). When Judah heard this he screamed and cried in a loud voice. (Judah screamed and cried because Joseph was not giving in to his demand to release Benjamin. ) He said: “For how will I go up to my father?” (Genesis 44:34). Judah said to Naphtali: ‘Go and see how many marketplaces there are in Egypt.’ He leapt and returned and said to him: ‘Twelve.’ Judah said to his brothers: ‘I will destroy three of them, and each and every one of you take one each, “and no man will be left among them”’ (I Samuel 14:36). His brothers said to him: ‘Egypt is not like Shekhem. If you destroy Egypt you will be destroying the entire world.’ “Joseph could not restrain himself before all those standing before him, and he called: Remove every man from before me. No man stood with him when Joseph revealed himself to his brothers” (Genesis 45:1). “He raised his voice in weeping; the Egyptians heard, and the house of Pharaoh heard” (Genesis 45:2). “Joseph said to his brothers: I am Joseph; does my father still live? And his brothers could not answer him because they were alarmed before him” (Genesis 45:3). “Joseph said to his brothers: Please approach me, and they approached. He said: I am Joseph your brother whom you sold to Egypt” (Genesis 45:4). At that moment, “Joseph could not restrain himself” (Genesis 45:1). When Joseph saw that they had come to an agreement to destroy Egypt, Joseph said to himself: ‘It is preferable that I reveal myself to them and they will not destroy Egypt.’ Joseph said to them: ‘Did you not say that this one’s brother was dead? I will call him and he will come to you.’ He was calling: ‘Joseph son of Jacob, come to me. Joseph son of Jacob come to me.’ They were looking to the four corners of the palace. He said to them: ‘What are you looking for? “I am Joseph your brother”’ (Genesis 45:4). Immediately, their souls departed, as it is stated: “His brothers could not [answer him because they were alarmed before him]” (Genesis 45:3). But they did not believe him until he uncovered himself and showed them his circumcision.

“And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Bekher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Eḥi, and Rosh, Mupim, and Ḥupim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela…” – when Joseph stood with Benjamin, he asked him: ‘Do you have sons?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘How many?’ He said to him: ‘Ten.’ He said: ‘What are their names?’ He said to him: ‘I had one brother. His actions were fine and pleasant, and he was taken captive from me, and I gave them names based on his experience. “Bela” – as he was swallowed [nivla] up from me; “Bekher” – as he was my firstborn [bekhor] [brother]; “Ashbel” – as he was taken captive [nishba] from me; “Gera” – as he resides [gar] in another land; “Naaman” – as his actions were fine [na’im] and pleasant [ne’imim]; “Eḥi” – as he was my full-fledged brother [aḥi]; “and Rosh” – as he was a leader [rosh] for me, and he was the head [roshan] of his brothers, as it is stated: “May his blessing rest on the head of [lerosh] Joseph” (Deuteronomy 33:16); “Mupim” – as he was very fine [yafeh] in all respects, and all the halakhot that Shem and Ever transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. (Mupim – mo pihem – directly from their mouths.) “And Ḥupim” – as he did not see my wedding canopy [beḥupati] and I did not see his wedding canopy [beḥupato], and they concealed [veḥipu] matters in his regard and said: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33). “And Ard” – as he was like a rose [vered]. “And Ard” – after: [Jacob said:] “For I will descend [ered] mourning to my son to the grave” (Genesis 37:35).’ “And the sons of Naphtali: Yaḥtze'el, and Guni, and Yetzer, and Shilem” (Genesis 46:24). “And the sons of Naphtali” – their [creations] were twisted [muftalin] on seventy-two heddles; (A heddle is an integral part of a loom.) as they twisted [potelin] the work of heddles. (They were expert weavers. ) “Yaḥtze'el” – they broke [sheḥitzu] the gods in their hand and they cut [metzaḥtzeḥin] with their teeth and would sneer with their lips. (They would break idols, and make cutting remarks and disdainful facial expressions about idolatry (see Yefeh To’ar; Etz Yosef). However, see Matnot Kehuna, where these statements are interpreted to mean that they fashioned idols and made disparaging comments toward God. ) “And Guni” – they spoke in derogatory [megunim] language. “And Yetzer” – their [evil] inclination was stronger than that of all [other] people. “And Shilem” – they were devoted [mushlamim] to their inclination (Alternatively, they were devoted to God despite their strong evil inclination (Yefeh To’ar). ) and would repay [umshalmin] goodness with evil.

The verse states: “The jealousy of Ephraim will cease” (Isaiah 11:13) – because Jacob our patriarch believed that Judah had killed Joseph when he brought him the tunic, as it is stated: “He recognized it, and said: My son's tunic, an evil beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33), and an evil beast is none other than a lion.

(Ibid., cont.:) GOD HAS FOUND OUT THE CRIME OF YOUR SERVANTS. Do not read: "He has found out" but: "He has caused < others > to find out." Two < of us > brothers never enter a banquet hall together because of the < evil > eye. Now all of us find ourselves in a single garden bed through a single offense which took place at our hands. He said to them: This brother of yours was not with you at that time. They said to him: Everything found with the thief is seized with him. He said to them: But, if in the case of your former brother, who neither stole nor caused you grief, you said (in Gen. 37:33 // 44:28): HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS; how much the more < are these words applicable > in the case of this one who has stolen and caused you grief! Go, say to his father: HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. Now are not < these > words an argument a fortiori? And, if an unfortunate incident which came about through righteous ones (like Joseph) has been sustaining the whole world, (Cf. the parallel version in Tanh., Gen. 10:10: “So if, in the case of an unfortunate incident which comes about through this righteous person, he has been sustaining all who come into the world…. ” In this version the reference is more clearly to Joseph’s misfortune which resulted in his feeding the world during the famine.) how much the more so in the case of merit which the Holy One brings about through them! (See above, note 35.)

[Another interpretation: IN ANTICIPATION OF THE TIME OF DISCOVERY.] < It means > that someone had to be hoping for something until he knew his end. Who was this? This was Jacob. Although he said (in Gen. 37:33 // 44:28): HE HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS, he was waiting for the Holy One. In the end he informed him that Joseph was alive. And not only that, but he < himself > brought him the good news that he was alive. (Gen. 43:14, cont.:) AND MAY GOD ALMIGHTY GRANT YOU MERCY. (Cf. Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34: “And not only that, but his mouth proclaimed the good news that he was alive. Where is it shown? Where it says (in Gen. 43:14, cont.): AND MAY GOD ALMIGHTY GRANT YOU MERCY BEFORE THE MAN THAT HE MAY RELEASE TO YOU YOUR BROTHER, i.e.. Simeon. THE OTHER ONE, i e., Joseph. AND BENJAMIN, i.e., Benjamin.”)

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9; Gen. R. 95:2.) < He was sent > because our father Jacob thought that Judah had killed Joseph because he had brought him the tunic, about which it is stated (in Gen. 37:33): HE RECOGNIZED IT AND SAID: MY SON'S TUNIC! AN EVIL BEAST HAS EATEN HIM. Now AN EVIL BEAST is nothing but a lion. (According to Gen. 49:9, JUDAH IS A LION’S WHELP.) So Jacob said to him: You have torn him to pieces, and you are going to tear his brother to pieces. You would not have torn him to pieces except out of jealousy. Immediately (there follows in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS….

When Reuben descended to the pit during the night to rescue his brother, and found that Joseph was no longer there, he tore his clothing and wept. He returned to his brothers and told them: The child is not; and as for me, whither shall I go? (ibid., v. 30). They related to him what had transpired and told him about the pact they had entered into. And he remained silent. Though it is written about the Holy One, blessed be He: He declareth His word to Jacob (Ps. 147:19), He did not disclose this matter to him because of the pact of excommunication. That is why Jacob said: Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces (Gen. 37:33). R. Mana maintained: The tribes were punished because they sold Joseph, and their sin was not forgiven until they died. Hence Scripture says of them: Surely, this iniquity shall not be expiated by you until you die (Isa. 22:17).

Joseph retorted. “Why do you speak in behalf of all your brothers? I have discovered through this cup that you do have older brothers, and that you are, indeed, a garrulous creature.” Judah replied: “What you see is correct, but I am compelled to speak because I pledged myself as a surety for my brother.” “Then why were you not surety for your brother when you sold him to the Midianites for twenty pieces of silver, and why did you distress your father by telling him Joseph is without doubt torn to pieces (Gen. 37:33)? Joseph did you no evil, but this one sinned in stealing the goblet. Go tell your father: The rope has followed after the bucket.” (That is, Benjamin suffered the same fate as Joseph.)

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere in reference to this verse: The envy also of Ephraim shall depart … Ephraim shall not envy Judah (Isa. 11:13). Jacob our patriarch sent Judah before him because he believed that Judah had killed Joseph at the time he brought him the coat of many colors, as it is said: And he knew it, and said: “It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him” (Gen. 37:33). An evil beast refers to Judah, since it is said: Judah is a lion’s whelp. And Jacob said to Judah: “Thou art the one who hath rent him asunder.” Whereupon Jacob rent his garments … and all his sons and daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid., vv. 34–35).

And Reuben || went down by night to bring up Joseph out of the pit, but he did not find him there. He said to them: Ye have slain Joseph; "and I, whither shall I go?" (Gen. 37:80). And they told him what they had done, and the ban which they had proclaimed; and Reuben heard of the ban, and was silent; the Holy One, blessed be He, because of the ban, did not tell the matter to Jacob, and (though) concerning Him it is written, "He sheweth his word unto Jacob" (Ps. 147:19); but this word He did not shew unto Jacob, therefore Jacob did not know what had been done to Joseph, and he said: "Joseph is without doubt torn in pieces" (Gen. 37:33).

“Your eyes are like doves.” Like doves; your quality is like that of the dove. Just as the dove brought light to the world, you, too, bring light to the world, as it is stated: “The nations will walk by your light” (Isaiah 60:3). When did the dove bring light to the world? During the days of Noah. That is what is written: “The dove came to him at evening time and behold, there was an olive leaf plucked [taraf] in its mouth” (Genesis 8:11). What is “taraf in its mouth”? (The root tet-resh-pei can refer to food or to killing.) Killed, just as you say: “Joseph was mauled [tarof taraf]” (Genesis 37:33). Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, it would have become a great tree. (The dove brought a leaf from a living tree, indicating to Noah that there was life in the world.) From where did it bring it? Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the flood waters. That is what was stated by Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been cleansed, that has not been rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the lower millstones were dissolved in the water. (Thus, since the destruction wrought by the flood was so devastating, it must be that if a tree was growing at that time, it was from the Land of Israel (Etz Yosef).) Rabbi Taryi said: The gates of the Garden of Eden opened for it, and it brought it from there. Rabbi Aivu said to him: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, should it not have brought a high-quality item, e.g., cinnamon or balsam? Rather it was hinting to Noah, [as though] it said to him: My master, Noah: [It is preferable to have something] bitter from this [tree] from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He, and not [something] sweet from your hand.

“Your eyes are doves” – your eyes are the Sanhedrin, who are the eyes of the congregation. That is what is written: “It shall be, if from the eyes of the congregation” (Numbers 15:24). There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a person, and all of them come and go only after the eyes. So too, Israel is unable to do anything without their Sanhedrin. “Doves” – just as this dove is faultless, so too, Israel is pleasant as they walk when they ascend on the occasions of the pilgrimage festivals. Just as the dove is conspicuous, so too, Israel is conspicuous in haircut, circumcision, and ritual fringes. Just as the dove is modest, so too, Israel is modest. Just as a dove extends its neck for slaughter, so too, Israel: “For we are killed for You all day” (Psalms 44:23). Just as the dove atones for evils, so too, Israel atones for the nations, as all the seventy bulls that they sacrifice on the festival [of Sukkot] correspond to the seventy nations, so that the world will not be bereft of them. That is what is written: “In return for my love, they accuse me; but I am all prayer” (Psalms 109:4). Just as the dove, from the time it meets its mate, it does not exchange it for another, so too Israel, from the time they came to know the Holy One blessed be He, they did not exchange Him for another. Just as the dove enters its nest and knows its nest, its dovecote, its fledglings, its chicks, and its windows, so are the three rows of Torah scholars when they sit before them, (Three rows of scholars would sit before the members of the Sanhedrin when the Sanhedrin would deliberate. When new judges for the Sanhedrin were needed, they were chosen from these scholars (see Sanhedrin 37a).) each and every one knows his place. Just as the dove, even though you take its fledglings from beneath it, it will never forsake its dovecote, so too Israel, even though the Temple was destroyed, the three annual pilgrimage festivals were not abrogated. Just as the dove produces a new brood each and every month, so too Israel renew for themselves Torah, mitzvot, and good deeds each month. Just as the dove travels far afield and returns to its dovecote, so too Israel; that is what is written: “They will stir like a bird from Egypt” (Hosea 11:11) – this is the generation of the wilderness; “and like a dove from the land of Assyria” (Hosea 11:11) – these are the Ten Tribes. These and those, “I will settle them in their houses, the utterance of the Lord” (Hosea 11:11). Rabbi says: There is a type of dove that they feed it, and its counterparts smell it and come to its dovecote. So too, when an elder sits and teaches, many proselytes convert at that time, such as Yitro, who heard and came, and Raḥav heard and came. So too Ḥananya, Mishael, and Azarya, many proselytes converted at that time. What is the reason? “When he sees his children” (Isaiah 29:23); what is written thereafter? “Those of misguided spirit will attain understanding” (Isaiah 29:24). Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] was sitting and expounding, and the audience was dozing. He sought to rouse them. He said: A certain woman in Egypt bore six hundred thousand in a single womb. There was one student there, Rabbi Yishmael ben Rabbi Yosei was his name. He said to [Rabbi]: ‘For whom was it so?’ [Rabbi] said to him: ‘This is Yokheved, who bore Moses, who is the equivalent of six hundred thousand of Israel. That is what is written: “Then sang Moses and the children of Israel” (Exodus 15:1). “The children of Israel did according to everything that the Lord commanded Moses, so they did” (Numbers 1:54). (The verse does not say that God commanded Israel, but rather that He commanded Moses and Israel did what He commanded.) “There has not arisen another prophet in Israel like Moses” (Deuteronomy 34:10).’ (The verse is formulated such that the last phrase quoted here can be translated as “Israel is like Moses.”) “Your eyes are doves” – like doves; your characteristic is like that of a dove; just as this dove brought light to the world, so too, Israel brings light to the world, as it is stated: “Nations will walk by your light” (Isaiah 60:3). When did the dove bring light to the world? In the days of Noah. That is what is written: “The dove came to him in the evening, and there was an olive leaf plucked in its mouth…” (Genesis 8:11). What is plucked [taraf]? Dead, just as you say: “Joseph has been torn apart [tarof toraf]” (Genesis 37:33). Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, (Had the dove not plucked the olive leaf.) it would have become a great tree. From where did it bring it? Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what people say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the water of the Flood. That is what was stated by Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been cleansed, that has not been rained upon on the day of fury” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the upper millstones were dissolved in the water. (This strengthens the question: If the destruction was so great, where did the dove find an olive branch (Maharzu). Alternatively, this supports Rabbi Levi’s answer: Since the destruction was so great, it must be that the olive branch was found in a place that remained unaffected by the Flood (Etz Yosef).) Rabbi Taryi said: The gates of The Garden of Eden were opened for it, and from there it brought it. Rabbi Aivu said to him: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, should it not have brought a quality item such as cinnamon or balsam? Rather, it was hinting to Noah as though saying to him: My master Noah, [it is preferable to have] something bitter like this from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He and not something sweet from you.

Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Olive oil, but not sesame oil, nor walnut oil, nor turnip oil, nor almond oil, but rather, olive oil from your olive trees. Rabbi Avin said: This is analogous to a king whose legions revolted against him. One legion of his did not revolt. The king said: That legion that did not revolt against me will be appointed commanders, lieutenants, and military governors. So, the Holy One blessed be He said: This olive tree brought light to the world in the days of Noah; that is what is written: “The dove came to him at evening time and, behold, a plucked [taraf] olive leaf was in its mouth” (Genesis 8:11). What is “taraf”? Killed, just as it says: “Joseph was mauled [tarof taraf]” (Genesis 37:33). (And presumed dead.) Rabbi Berekhya said: Had it not killed it, it would have become a great tree. (When the dove plucked the olive leaf that it brought back to Noah, it killed the olive tree, which was a small sapling but could have grown into a great tree.) From where did it bring it? Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: It brought it from the Mount of Olives. Rabbi Levi said: It brought it from the branches of the Land of Israel. That is what they say: The Land of Israel was not stricken with the Flood waters. That is what the Holy One blessed be He said by means of Ezekiel: “Son of man, say to it: You are a land that has not been purified, [that has not been rained upon on the day of fury]” (Ezekiel 22:24). Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even the lower millstone was obliterated in the waters. (Since the Flood was so destructive that even large stones, such as millstones, were eroded, the dove could have found an olive leaf only in the Land of Israel, which was not destroyed in the flood. ) Rabbi Berekhya said; The gates of the Garden of Eden opened before it, and it brought it from there. Rabbi Aivu said: Had it brought it from the Garden of Eden, was there not a more exceptional item to bring, e.g., cinnamon or balsam? Rather, it [brought the olive leaf] as an indication to him, saying: My master, Noah, [I prefer something] bitter like this from the hand of the Holy One blessed be He, and not something sweet from your hand. “Outside the curtain of the testimony, in the Tent of Meeting, Aaron shall arrange it from evening until morning before the Lord continually; an eternal statute for your generations” (Leviticus 24:3).

... "Until he comes to Shiloh" - as in the future all of the nations of the world will bring a present to (shai le) the Messiah, the son of David, as it is stated (Isaiah 18:7), "at that time, a present shall be brought to the Lord of hosts" ...

לא פללתי, an expression describing prayer as a request from G-d. We find this word in this sense also in Psalms 106,30, where it quotes Pinchas as having prayed. Yaakov says that he had not even prayed to see Joseph again, as it would have been inappropriate seeing that he thought he had seen evidence that Joseph had been the victim of a wild beast. (Genesis 37,33) An alternate explanation: whenever this word occurs it refers to making a judgment, i.e. arriving at a definitive conclusion. Yaakov would have been saying that he had never even entertained real hope to see Joseph again. (Rash’bam)

וידע נח כי קלו המים, “then Noach knew that the waters had subsided substantially. The fact that the pigeon stayed out all day long convinced Noach that there was what to look at other than mere water. According to the view that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel (Zevachim 113) how could Noach have known from the torn olive leaf that the waters had indeed subsided so much? He could have deduced that this leaf had originated in the Holy Land, or it had been picked up floating on the surface of the waters? The word חטף used by the Torah here, always is used in connection with something that has been plucked from a tree. If it had been picked up floating, it would have been a whole leaf, and would not have shown signs of having been picked from its branch. The translation by Yonathan ben Uzziel is further proof of this. He translates: נחית, i.e. plucked by mouth or beak. [The Hebrew equivalent of when Yaakov mourned his son Joseph as having been torn to shreds by a wild beast, טרף טרף יוסף, Genesis 37,33.]

והנה עלי זית טרף בפיה, “and behold, it had a sprouting olive leaf in its beak.” The word טרף in this sense also occurs in Ezekiel 17,9 i.e. כל טרפי צמחה תיבש, “all its sprouting leaves may wither.” [The normal translation of the word טרף is familiar to us from Genesis 37,33, where Yaakov used it when confronted with the bloodied shreds of his son Joseph, is “torn.” Presumably, the author felt that if that was the meaning of the word here, it would have been unnecessary, as how else could the pigeon have gotten hold of it. Ed.] Seeing the sprouting leaf, Noach knew that the waters had receded significantly. It was also clear to him that the pigeon had not found that leaf floating on top of the water. He was certain that it had been plucked from a tree that was in good condition.

Joseph’s stained robe was produced by the brothers to disguise the fact that they were responsible for Joseph’s disappearance. Jacob “recognised it and said, ‘It is my son’s robe! A wild animal has devoured him. Joseph has surely been torn to pieces’” (Gen. 37:33).

.טרפה לא הבאתי אליך , “that which was mangled I never brought to you.” Yaakov meant that while under his care no ferocious beast mangled any of Lavan’s animals. The expression טרפה is employed as in 37,33 חיה רעה אכלתהו, טרוף טורף יוסף, “a wild beast has devoured him, Joseph has been horribly mangled.” We have other verses in Scripture using the word in the same sense.

Scientific books claim that the basic number of gemstones, (not allowing for variants, mutations) are only 12 in number, so that they were all represented on the breastplate of the High Priest. They may be considered as the “patriarchs” of all other precious stones. The reason that the gemstone assigned to the tribe of Reuven was the אודם was the fact that it symbolised the blush on his face when he owned up to being guilty of his misdemeanour in Bilhah’s tent. The fact that he was not ashamed to admit his guilt is a credit to him reflected by this red-coloured stone known as “rubin.” It is supposedly found in certain areas at the bottom of the sea. It is chipped of a great rock beneath the sea, and is mined similar to silver and gold. The rock is known as Balax. Rubin and Balax are supposedly two names for the same kind of stone. The difference between them is only that the variety known as rubin is reddish looking. Onkelos also translates the word אודם as סמקן, a red stone. It is the choicest of a number of sub-categories of the same basic kind of precious stone. Seeing it is red, an essential colour reminding us of blood, it is reputed to have the power to protect a woman who wears this jewel against ever aborting any fetus she carries. Women who wear jewelry made from this stone will give birth to babies that have been growing in their wombs for the full nine months. The stone is even supposed to have positive effects upon women who are having a difficult delivery. If this stone will be crushed into powder and consumed with food and drink it displays properties similar to those of the דודאים (mandrakes?), the plant which Leah “sold” Rachel in order to help her achieve pregnancy (compare author’s comment on Genesis 30,14). The shape of those dudaim which Reuven had found at the time was the outline of a human being. This is the reason that the word אודם, normally spelled with the letter ו was spelled without that letter in order to draw our attention to the spelling which could be read “Adam,”אדם . The reading of the word teaches the nature of the stone, whereas the spelling teaches the effect of that stone, its function. Shimon’s stone פטדה, is a greenish-looking gemstone, similar to the turquoise colour of the sea in certain coastal cities. Onkelos also translates it as ירקן (emerald?). It is of the same group as the gemstone נפך, the stone with the name of Yehudah inscribed on it. Both are of similar colour, except that the stone described as נפך is the more precious of its group. It sparkles very much. The פטדה is inferior to the נפך both in colour and in sparkle. The greenish colour symbolises the terrible sexual licentiousness committed by that tribe who had caused the face of their leader Zimri to turn green in shame (Numbers 28,14). The same happened to all the other members of the tribe of Shimon who took part in that sin at that time. Darkon, dropsy, was the illness from which these people died. The positive feature of that gemstone is that it cools the body. This may be the reason it is found in hot countries such as Nubia (the Sudan). The people in that country are especially steeped in sexual licentiousness. They need to “cool off” in order to counteract their tendencies. This is why we read in Job 28,19 “topaz from Nubia cannot match its value (that of rubies).” The reason Job made this comparison was because these stones were found in Nubia. The stone which bore the name of Levi was the ברקת, known popularly as carbuncle (a rounded gemstone without facets). It is so called as it flashes just like a bolt of lightning, ברק. It illuminates like a lamp. Onkelos also translates it as ברקן, a flashing stone. This was the gemstone Noach hung in the ark to provide him with light. The Torah referred to this light in Genesis 6,15 צהר תעשה לתבה. Isaiah refers to it as אקדח, in Isaiah 54,12 where, speaking of the future of Israel he writes: ”I will make your battlements rubies and your gates of precious stones, i.e. לאבני אקדח.” The name is justified as it appears glowing like red-hot coals. A similar expression occurs also in Isaiah 50,11: “kindlers of fire.” The reason this stone was chosen to symbolise Levi was that the Levites illuminate the people by teaching them spiritual illumination, i.e. Torah, as we know from Deut. 33,10 יורו משפטיך ליעקב ותורתך לישראל, “they teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel.” We also know of Moses, who was of the tribe of Levi, that the whole house was filled with light when he was born as the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 1,24) interpreted the words in Exodus there (Exodus 2,2) that “she (his mother) saw that he was good.” Furthermore, when Moses returned from Mount Sinai with the second sets of Tablets the Torah testified that the skin of his face emitted rays of light (Exodus 34,29). We have another verse (Kohelet 8,1) “a man’s wisdom lights up his face.” The positive value of this gemstone is that it is apt to enlighten the foolish, providing him with insights he never had. This is in addition to the general usefulness of that jewel in providing light just as does a lamp. People say that if one pounds this carbuncle into fine dust and mixes it with food or drink as one mixes certain medicinal herbs into the food it proves very capable of providing wisdom and opening up previously “closed” hearts. Yehudah’s name was inscribed on the gemstone called נפך as we mentioned already. This jewel is known either as merkedy or zemurah in Arabic. Onkelos’ translation azmoragdin, (emerald) can support either one of these names. He chose a combination of these two words. As already mentioned, it is a greenish stone of high luster and represented his shame-facedness in accusing his daughter-in-law Tamar’s pregnancy as being the result of harlotry when he himself had fathered the child she was carrying (Genesis 38,26). Seeing that he overcame his embarrassment and made a public confession of his own involvement, this stone, i.e. its color, was chosen as appropriate for him. In addition he also had had to bear the shame, i.e. his face turning green, in the matter of having sold Joseph and his father suspecting him of this though the matter had never been spoken of. When Yaakov blessed Yehudah on his deathbed saying: “from the prey, my son, you elevated yourself,” he wanted him to know that he suspected him of having been involved in the deception which had made Yaakov call out in anguish: “a wild beast has torn Joseph to shreds (Genesis 37,33).” When hearing his father say that he considered Yehudah as having elevated himself, i.e. having exonerated himself from that guilt, his face was restored to its original colour after all these years. It then resembled the appearance of the emerald giving off a sparkle. It is also written of Yehudah (Genesis 49,8) “your hand is at the neck of your enemy,” and the outstanding feature of the gemstone emerald is that people wearing it experience that their enemies turn their neck towards them, i.e. that they attempt to flee. This is the reason this jewel is known as נפך. The Bible comments on Yehudah’s bravery in battle more than once, and it is written of David (Samuel I 18,7) that he defeated his enemies in their tens of thousands, Of the messiah it is written: (Isaiah 11,4) “with the spirit (breath) of his mouth he will kill the wicked.” Issachar’s name was inscribed on a jewel called ספיר, sapphire, a jewel known as sephily of a blue colour. It had been assigned to Issachar because he was extremely wise and his tribe excelled in Torah knowledge. This has been attested to in Chronicles I 12,32. We have a tradition that the Tablets with the Ten Commandments were made of sapphire (Tanchuma Ki Tissa 26). We also find another reference to this jewel in Exodus 24,10 where the vision of G’d seen by the elders and the nobles is described as their observing with their mental eyes the appearance of bricks made of sapphire. It is a well known fact that the souls of Torah scholars are part of a whole bundle of souls beneath the throne of G’d’s attribute כבוד. This is derived from Ezekiel 1,26: “as the semblance of a throne, in appearance like sapphire.” The blue color of this jewel is not like the blue which denotes haughtiness similar to certain shades of red or green; on the contrary, it is a color symbolizing humility, modesty, a character trait equally becoming to both young and old. This is what Isaiah 57,15 meant when he wrote: “I dwell on high, in holiness; yet with the contrite and lowly in spirit.” The outstanding feature of this jewel is that it is good for one’s eyesight; this is the reason people have a habit of passing this jewel back and forth in front of their eyes. It was appropriate for Issachar as Torah also provides enlightenment. There is a popular saying that this jewel is useful in getting rid of all manner of pains and any swelling one experiences in any part of one’s body. The Torah too is a powerful remedy for all parts of the body. We have been told in Eyruvin 54 that if someone suffers from headaches the best remedy is to immerse oneself in the study of Torah. The name of Zevulun was inscribed on the gemstone known as יהלום, diamond. This gemstone is known as pirle, same as bedolach. It is clear, transparent. It is to remind us of “white” silver, an allusion to the material wealth of the tribe of Zevulun. We know from Yaakov’s blessing of Zevulun in Genesis 49,13 that he was a great trader sending his ships far afield in order to bring home wealth from foreign lands. It was appropriate therefore that the stone bearing his name was the diamond. The special property of the diamond for man is that it helps one to go to sleep, something Leah referred to when she (the mother of Zevulun) said after he was born: “this time my husband will make his permanent home with me” (Genesis 30,20). [I believe what the author meant was that possession of diamonds allows people to sleep easy as they feel emotionally and economically secure. Ed.] The name of the tribe of Dan was inscribed on a gemstone called לשם, known as opal, or ashtefassis. It shows a human face turned upside down, reminiscent of the time when the tribe of Dan attempted to reverse the norms of Judaism by appointing for themselves a non-Levite as religious leader (compare Judges 18,31). We find in Joshua 19,47 that a certain town previously called Leshem was renamed Dan in commemoration of the founding father of that tribe. This city became an integral part of the land of Israel. The name of the tribe of Naftali was inscribed on a jewel known as שבו, agate. It is commonly known as turquoise. [The various names which I have spelled in italics appear to be the equivalents of these gems’ names in Spanish or old French during the time of the author. Ed.] Onkelos also translates it as טרקיא. The special property ascribed to that gemstone was that it “pulls” man while riding in carriages or riding horses and enables him to become successful as a driver or rider. This occurs through man and beast developing mutual affinity for each other while man sits in the saddle. It was appropriate for Naftali to be associated with this gemstone as at the time he was born his step-mother Rachel had said that she had prevailed in a struggle with the attribute of Justice and her sister and as a result her handmaid had born this son for her. Rachel also had to use all her abilities (she thought) in order to have a son at least through her handmaid (compare Genesis 30,8). The gemstone bearing the name of Gad was the אחלמה, popularly known as crystal. This is why Onkelos translates the word as עין עגלא. A better known gemstone called lemon is similar to it but reddish in appearance. The reason this gemstone was used to symbolize Gad was that seeing the gemstone crystal is very common and everyone is familiar with it, the members of the tribe of Gad were also widely known as were the people who had been slain by this tribe in the wars of Israel against the Canaanites. This is the meaning of Deut. 33,20 וטרף זרעו קדקד , “tearing off arm, and even head.” The special property of this gemstone is that it reinforces the resolve of one’s heart when going to war and prevents one from becoming faint-hearted. The gemstone gives man strength. It is called אחלמה, as that word is connected to מלחמה, attributes needed to be successful in battle. The expression occurs in that sense in Isaiah 38,16: ותחלימני ותחיני, “You have restored me to health and have revived me.” The idea is that G’d made King Chiskiyah strong again. Another verse with a similar message is Job 39,4 where G’d speaks to Job about the health of the hinds, etc., saying יחלמו בניהם ירבו בבר, “their young are healthy (strong) able to grow up in the open fields.” The gemstone on which the name of the tribe of Asher was inscribed is called תרשיש, better known as cariolica, topaz, chrysolite. Its color is close to that of oil (olive oil). Others say that its color is azure-blue (compare R' David Kimchi). Onkelos translates it as כרום ימא, aquamarine. The reason is that the color of the sea resembles that of azure-blue. The name Tarshish appears also as a destination in the ship hired by the prophet Jonah, presumably because these gems could be found in that country. The special property of this topaz is to facilitate in the digestion of foods. It is even more important if one first pulverizes it and mixes the powder into one’s food. It will then make a mass similar to a mixture of flour and oil. The Torah extols Asher’s land portion within the land of Israel as being particularly full of oil, i.e. rich soil as we know from Yaakov’s blessing in Genesis 49,20. The gemstone bearing the name of the tribe of Joseph was called שהם, better known as onyx. The special property of this jewel is that its owners enjoy favor in the eyes of people. The letters in that stone also spell השם when read in a different order. This is an allusion to the verse in Genesis 39,2: “G’d was with Joseph and he became a successful man;” or, Genesis 39,24 “G’d made the warden of the prison like Joseph, etc.” Anyone who wears the jewel in the king’s palace will find that he becomes very successful and that his suggestions will be well received. The name of the gemstone on which Binyamin’s name was inscribed was ישפה, better known as jasper. It is a multi-colored gem consisting of red, black, green. Binyamin had many contradictory thoughts about the sale of Joseph by his brothers, all of which are reflected in the different colours of the jasper. The special property of that stone is that it stops the flow of blood. The reason this gemstone was assigned to the tribe of Binyamin had to do with the founder of that tribe not being able to decide if to tell his father that Joseph was most likely alive, or to keep silent as he could not foresee how Yaakov would react to such information. In the end he controlled himself, stopped himself, and did not reveal what he knew. The word ישפה may be understood as two words, i.e. יש פה, “he has a mouth,” or words to that effect. The name of that stone alludes to the fact hat Binyamin deserved credit for keeping silent about what he knew his brothers had done to his older brother Joseph. This completes the discussion about the twelve gemstones on the breastplate of the High Priest. All the details connected with the stones, the breastplate, the inscriptions, etc., are part and parcel of the detailed supervision G’d exercises over the fate of the Jewish people in all its aspects.

מטרף FROM THE PREY (literally, tearing) — From the deed of which I suspected you when I said (Genesis 37:33) “Joseph is torn in pieces, an evil beast hath devoured him” — and by that Judah was meant who was likened to a lion —

וסרח אחותם, “and their sister Serach.” Some commentators claim that seeing the Torah did not use the customary “and Search, his daughter,” as for instance “and Dinah his daughter,” but defined her as someone’s “sister,” that this is proof that Serach had not been sired by Asher at all, but had been born to his wife. This view is also held by Onkelos in his translation of our verse, where he adds the word: “his wife.” I fail to understand the validity of such a commentary as how could she then have been included in what were specifically described in verse 5 of our chapter as “the names of the descendants (biological) who made up the Children of Israel who arrived in Egypt?” The end of the chapter repeats “all the people who were biologically related to Yaakov’s offspring, etc.” We can only explain all this by again referring to the style of the Torah when narrating such details, i.e. that daughters are lumped together with their brothers when the Torah relates family relationships. Another prominent example of the style of the Torah in this regard is the line:ואחות לוטן תמנע, “Lotan had a sister named Timna.” The Torah does not describe Timna’s father as having a daughter by that name. Rashi writes that according to the view of the sage that the brothers all married half sisters who were born as twins with their male counterparts, that now, at the time when the family moved to Egypt, they were not enumerated in the list of seventy descendants as they had all died before this point in time. Nachmanides writes that we do not need to fall back on such an unlikely scenario as the brothers all having married half sisters by the father who had died before they could have reached the age of 40 or so, but that the meaning of Rabbi Yehudah (Bereshit Rabbah 84,21) who claims that Yaakov’s sons married their “sisters” who had been born as twins of their brothers, is that their names had not needed to be listed, except with the words מלבד נשי בני יעקב, “not including the wives of Yaakov’s sons,” adequately covered the subject. If the sons of Yaakov had indeed married Canaanite women, why would the Torah in Genesis 37,33 mention these women as Yaakov’s daughters? Unless they had been biologically related to Yaakov, such as being twin daughters, there would have been no point in referring to them in this entire chapter. Their names were not mentioned in this chapter just as they had not been mentioned at the time they had been born. The main purpose of the Torah listing the incredibly small number of people who came to Egypt with Yaakov, i.e. 70, was to show that these formed the nucleus of a great nation which developed into millions, counting wives and children who were minors, by the time they left Egypt 210 years later. It was in order to alert us to this miraculous population explosion of the Jewish people while they were on Egyptian soil. Man and wife are considered as one unit, as only as a pair can they sire offspring.

[65] And so the practisers of sound sense, perceiving that Joseph first with his senses, and afterwards with his understanding, pursues this way of artificiality, cry outright, “An evil beast has seized and devoured him”  (Gen. 37:33).

Rabbi Shimon would say: Such is the punishment for a liar, that even when he speaks the truth, no one listens to him. So we find with the children of Jacob, who deceived their father. In the beginning he believed them, as it says (Genesis 37:31), “They took Joseph’s coat, slaughtered a goat,” and then it says (Genesis 37:33), “He recognized it, and said: This is my son’s coat! But afterward, even when they spoke the truth to him, he did not believe them, as it says (Genesis 45:26), ([“His heart became numb, for he did not believe them.”]) “They told him, and said: Joseph is still alive…[but] he did not believe them.” Some say that the holy spirit that had departed from Jacob now returned to him, as it says (Genesis 45:27), “And the spirit of their father Jacob was revived.”

If it was torn by beasts, the guardian shall bring it as evidence—not needing to replace what has been torn by beasts.

He recognized it and said, It is my son’s coat. An evil beast has devoured him. Yoseif has been torn to pieces [surely killed].

And he discerned it and said, It is my son's garment: yet a wild beast hath not devoured him, neither is my son Joseph slain ; but I see by the Spirit of the sanctuary, that an evil woman standeth against him.

And he recognised it and said, It is my son's garment: a beast of the wilderness hath not devoured him, neither hath he been slain by the hand of man; but I see by the Holy Spirit, that an evil woman standeth against him.

.."And Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his loins, etc. It is suggested that the reason it says 'his clothes' and not 'his garments' as it did for Reuben is to emphasize that Jacob tore his precious garments. Similarly, it mentions 'sackcloth on his loins' and not 'girded with sackcloth' like 'gird with sackcloth.' Alternatively, it could be 'he put on sackcloth,' as in the case of Mordecai. Another reason for this excessive mourning is that, since one does not find comfort in life, as the sages said, it was not fitting for him to perform mourning rites for these actions. The verse also says 'and they rose,' not 'and they came.' It also mentions 'all his sons and all his daughters' without specifying that the comforters were young boys and girls. The reason for saying 'I will go down mourning' is questioned; what comfort did he find in this? It seems that Jacob mourned for Joseph in two ways: first, due to the loss of a great and righteous man like Joseph, for whom everyone should mourn. Second, because he was his son, and he had no merit to protect him, and his brothers' transgressions led to these events. Therefore, to express his awareness of Joseph's worth, he tore his splendid clothes, according to the saying, 'The garment makes the man.' And as 'and put your clothes upon you,' it is expounded as 'wear mourning garments' like the explanation in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe'ah 5:7 and Rabbah). This is due to the general mourning, even if he didn't have a son; he would do this, as explained. The second point: 'and put sackcloth upon his loins.' It means that he placed the sackcloth directly on his flesh from the inside, and it stuck to his skin beneath his garments. He put it on his loins to signify mourning for his son who came out from his loins and his abdomen. He acted with this private mourning for many days. Later, his sons and daughters sensed this, and they saw his actions as a bad omen. As the Sages say (Midrash Kohelet 27): 'Anyone who prolongs mourning for a deceased more than necessary is doing so over another deceased.' This is what they felt against him, thinking that what he was doing was a bad sign for them. Therefore, they rose up to forcefully put an end to his behavior. Perhaps they demanded that he console himself for their sake, as he had other sons and daughters, and the sons had their own children. This is the meaning of 'all his sons and all his daughters.' He replied that he wasn't concerned about them, even though they were numerous, as he was mourning and lamenting for his son, and none of them would fill his place. According to the first interpretation, he meant that he would go down to his sons' level of mourning, behaving in mourning throughout his life for his son, for whom he did not merit to protect. And there are pious individuals who weep and mourn all their days when they see that, Heaven forbid, they stumbled even in a minor matter, as exemplified by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananiah, who fasted every day because his teeth turned black, as he said, 'I am ashamed before my teeth,' as mentioned in Chagigah 22. Some say he responded to them that, on the contrary, it is better that they do not see him happy but rather sad, so that the Satan does not accuse him. Furthermore, he quoted the words of Job, 'If I say, "I will forget my complaint, I will change my expression and smile,"' meaning that he would forget entirely from his heart or, at least, even if he does not forget from his heart, he would change his face to present himself before people as if he has no sorrow. 'All my suffering I know that You will not acquit me,' meaning that he feared that the Satan would not cease accusing him.

ימים רבים, “for many days.” According to Rashi the reason why Yaakov suffered this grief was as punishment for the many years that he had not observed the commandment of honouring father and mother. If you were to ask how this is possible, seeing that he had been sent away by his father to get himself a wife, the answer is that he was not willing to return home after his mother had sent Rivkah’s nursemaid to tell him that it was safe to come back, as we explained earlier on 35,8 where we have been told about Devorah’s death.

ימים רבים, “for many days.” The word “many” means the seven days which are prescribed for mourning next of kin who have died. The fact that the Torah refers to seven days as “many” is no cause for surprise as we find that the Torah calls even three days רבים, “many,” from the halachic interpretation of that word by Torat Kohanim on Leviticus 15,25. Bereshit Rabbah 84,20 quoted by Rashi writes that the words “many days” mean “many years,” i.e. for the full twenty-two years that Yaakov and Joseph were apart. Rashi explains how these twenty-two years are arrived at. Joseph was 17 years old when he was sold and he was 39 years old when Yaakov and family moved to Egypt. He was described as 30 years of age when he stood before Pharaoh and interpreted the dreams. This was followed by 7 years of plenty. The brothers traveled to Egypt in the first as well as in the second year of the famine before returning with their families during that same year. These twenty-two years of separation between Yaakov and Joseph corresponded to the twenty-two years Yaakov had been absent from his home when he had to flee from Esau. [The 14 years he spent at the academy of Shem and Ever studying Torah are not counted as that was not the result of his having cheated Esau. Ed.]

ויקרע יעקב, he mourned him excessively because he had loved him so inordinately. Besides, he blamed himself partially for his fate for having sent him on what turned out to have been a dangerous mission.

ימים רבים MANY DAYS — twenty-two years (Genesis Rabbah 84:20) — from the time he left him until Jacob went down to Egypt. For it is said, (v. 2) “Joseph was seventeen years old” (when all these events happened), and he was thirty years old when he stood before Pharaoh; seven years of plenty and two years of famine had passed by the time Jacob came to Egypt — making in all 22 years. These correspond to the 22 years during which Jacob had not practised the duty of honouring his parents (that is, the period during which he did not reside with them and attend to their needs) (Megillah 17a): viz., the twenty years he stayed in Laban’s house and the two years on the journey when he was returning from Laban’s house — one and a half year at Succoth and six months at Bethel. This is what he meant when he said to Laban (31:41) “These twenty years that I have been in thy house are לי” — they are for me — the responsibility for them lies upon me (לי being taken as עלי) and at sometimes I shall be punished for a period equal to them.

ויקרע שמלתיו. Nur bei sehr seltenen Vorgängen, — wie noch bei Josua in Ai (Kap. 7, 6) und den Brüdern (Bereschit 44, 13) — findet sich .בקרע שמלות In der Regel sonst בגד .קרע בגד ist das Kleid, welches den Menschen in seinem äußeren Erscheinen darstellt (daher כגור: vollständig zu einer Scheinhülle werden, ein בֺגֵֺד ist nichts als ein בגד von einem Menschen, wir meinen den Menschen zu haben und haben nur ein Kleid!) Schmerz, Trauer, Scham drücken durch einen Riss ins Gewand aus: daß in die äußeren Beziehungen des Menschen ein Riss gekommen; seine Ehre, sein Glück hat einen Riss erlitten. Daher auch Ausdruck für אבל — .אבלות und seine verwandten Wurzeln drücken alle eine Dunkelheit, Unklarheit aus. (אפל die Dunkelheit der Nacht. אול, die Wurzel von אֱוִיל, ein Narr, und אולי vielleicht. Es gibt zweierlei Narren auf Erden. Den einen, der jeden Augenblick seine Meinung wechselt, dem alles unklar ist, der daher Ja und Nein sagt, je nachdem es ihm einfällt. Es ist dies der unklare, buntscheckig phantastische Narr: אויל. Den zweiten, sein Gegenpart: der beschränkte Mensch, der steif in einer einmal gefassten Meinung verharrt, der sich durch nichts überzeugen lässt, sich fest auf seine zwei Füße stemmt, der Lendennarr: כסיל). Die Partikel אְבָל tritt immer, dem noch eben für wahr und entschieden Gehaltenen, es beschränkend entgegen. Wenn nun etwas geschehen ist, wodurch allem Glück, jedem hellen Strahl, jeder Heiterkeit und jedem festen Schritt auf Erden ein "aber": ein אְַבָל! entgegengesetzt wird, da ist אבלות: Trauer. Der Ausdruck dieser Trauer: קריעה, Gegensatz von שלום, dem Zustand ungestörten Wohles, eigentlich ja des Ganzseins. שמלה ist nun vorzugsweise das Gewand, das den nackten Leib berührt, שמלתו לעורו, ( — daher wohl auch Waschen zur Sauberkeit mehr כבס שמלות, während טבילה von :טומאה כבום בגדים —) Jakob zerriss seine Gewänder bis auf den nackten Leib und legt, statt eines sich sanft anschmiegenden Gewandes, ein härenes (שק bezeichnet den Stoff, Ziegenhaare, aus welchem Säcke gemacht wurden), also etwas an, was den Menschen bei jeder Bewegung unangenehm berührt und ihn, wenn er einmal fröhlich sein will, unaufhörlich daran erinnert, er habe kein Recht dazu, fröhlich zu sein. Deshalb auch ויתאבל, er hielt sich in der Trauer, hielt sich stets das "אֲכָל!" "Aber — Josef ist nicht da!“ entgegen.

וישם שק במתניו, a section of fabric which sacks are made of. He draped his loins in enough of this material to demonstrate his being in mourning.

Twenty-two years... Maharik writes (ch. 37) that Rashi cited this, although it is not the verse’s simple meaning, in order to explain why Hashem agreed to the ban and did not reveal to Yaakov [that Yoseif was alive]. It was because He had decreed that Yaakov be anguished for twenty-two years. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Yaakov did not fulfill honoring one’s father and mother. You might ask: Why was he punished for this? Yitzchak and Rivkah commanded him to go there and take a wife! Rabbeinu Bechaye answers in Parshas Toldos (28:1): They intended for him to marry Leah and return immediately. But he desired Rochel because of her beauty and said, “I will work for you seven years for Rochel” (29:18). Thus, all the time he spent there was his own choice. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Jacob rent his garments in mourning, placed sackcloth on his loins, and mourned his son many days.

“He observed mourning for his son many days” [37:34]. Jacob mourned for many days for Joseph, for twenty-two years. Jacob has sinned that he did not honor his father Isaac. Jacob was with Laban for twenty-two years, since Jacob served fourteen years for Rachel and Leah. Afterwards, he served for six years for the sheep and Jacob was on the road for two years. All together, this is twenty-two years. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:34.)

Tearing the clothes is an expression of pain and sorrow. The Torah relates the stories of several individuals who tore their clothes after hearing bad news – for example, Jacob tore his clothes when he heard that Joseph was killed (Genesis 37:34), and the Israelites tore their clothes when they were vanquished by the Ai (Joshua 7:6). The source for this obligation is derived from the death of the sons of Aaron. Aaron and his remaining sons were commanded not to act as mourners, and they were told: “Let not the hair of your heads go loose, neither rend your clothes” (Leviticus 10:6). The Sages learned from this that the mourner should uncover his head and tear his clothing. Tearing represents the rent caused between body and soul. (Ibid.)

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“Jacob rent his garments, placed sackcloth on his loins, and mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34). “Jacob rent his garments” – Rabbi Pinḥas said in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend. Where did they receive retribution? In Egypt, as it was stated: “They rent their garments…” (Genesis 44:13). Joseph caused the tribes to rend; his descendant arose, and retribution was exacted against him, as it is stated: “Joshua rent his garments” (Joshua 7:6). Benjamin caused the tribes to rend. (When Joseph’s goblet was found in Benjamin’s sack, his brothers rent their garments. Although this was not Benjamin’s fault, since it occurred through him, he was also punished. Alternatively, knowing that his brothers’ money was returned on their first trip, he should have checked his sack before setting out (Yefe To’ar). ) Where was retribution exacted against him? In Shushan the citadel, as it is stated: “Mordekhai rent his garments” (Esther 4:1). Manasseh caused the tribes to rend; (Manasseh was the messenger Joseph sent to search his brothers’ sacks (Matnot Kehuna). ) that is why his inheritance was split, half of it in the land of the Jordan and half of it in the land of Canaan. “Placed sackcloth on his loins” – Rabbi Aivu said: Because Jacob our patriarch adopted sackcloth, it does not depart from him, from his children, and from his descendants until the end of all the generations. But it is practiced only among his prominent descendants, [such as] David, as it is stated: “David and the elders, covered in sackcloth, fell on their faces” (I Chronicles 21:16). Ahab – “and placed sackcloth upon his flesh” (I Kings 21:27). Yoram – “the people looked, and behold, the sackcloth was upon his flesh” (II Kings 6:30). Mordekhai – “he donned sackcloth and ashes” (Esther 4:1). “And mourned his son many days” – these were twenty-two years. (Joseph was sold at age seventeen and stood before Pharaoh at age thirty. His father descended to Egypt in the second year of the famine that followed the seven years of plenty. Joseph was then thirty-nine years old. Thus, he was separated from Jacob for twenty-two years, corresponding to the twenty-two years that Jacob was away from his father.)

“He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words; the one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me, and you shall be exonerated” (Genesis 44:10). “He said: Now too, it shall be in accordance with your words” – ten people, one of whom is implicated in theft, are they not all incarcerated? But I will not do so. “The one with whom it shall be found will be a slave to me.” “He searched, he began with the eldest, and with the youngest he concluded; the goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” (Genesis 44:12). “He searched, he began with the eldest and with the youngest he concluded” – why did he do so? It was so they would not say that he knew where it had been placed. “The goblet was found in Benjamin's sack” – once the goblet was found, they said to him: ‘What [have you done,] thief who is son of a thief?’ (The other brothers accused Benjamin of stealing the goblet and endangering them all, and criticized him as a thief son of a thief, as his mother, Rachel, stole her father’s household idols (Genesis 31:19).) He said to them: ‘Is the man [who sold] Joseph here? Are there goats here? (A reference to the goat the brothers had slaughtered in order to dip Joseph’s tunic in its blood so that Jacob would assume that Joseph had been mauled to death (Genesis 37:31). ) Can brothers who sold their brother [accuse me in this manner]? Astounding!’ “They rent their garments, and each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (Genesis 44:13). “They rent their garments…” – Rabbi Pinḥas in the name of Rabbi Hoshaya: The tribes caused their father to rend, (Jacob rent his garments upon learning of Joseph’s disappearance (Genesis 37:34). ) that is why, they, too, were afflicted. “Each man loaded his donkey…” – each of them would take his burden with one hand and place it on his donkey. (This was an expression of their great strength.) “They returned to the city…” – Rabbi Abahu said: It was a metropolis, and it says: “To the city”? (The verse could have stated “to Egypt.” The phrase “to the city” implies that it was like any other city, not the seat of power of the Egyptian empire (Maharzu).) Rather, it teaches that it was no more significant in their eyes than a city of ten people. (The brothers were not afraid of having to wage war and conquer the city (Etz Yosef). )

“The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent. They have placed dust on their heads, have girded themselves with sackcloth. The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground” (Lamentations 2:10). “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” Rabbi Elazar said: Let the portion of vows not be insignificant in your eyes, as it is on account of the portion of vows that the Great Sanhedrin of Zedekiah were killed. When Yekhonya was exiled, King Nebuchadnezzar appointed him (Zedekiah.) over five kings. That is what is written: “Send to the king of Edom, to the king of Moav, to the king of the children of Ammon, to the king of Tyre and to the king of Sidon, in the hand of the messengers who come to Jerusalem to Zedekiah, king of Judah” (Jeremiah 27:3). He would enter and exit before him without permission. (Zedekiah had unfettered access to Nebuchadnezzar.) One day, he entered before him and saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it raw. [Nebuchadnezzar] said to him: ‘Take an oath to me that you will not publicize this about me,’ and he took an oath to him. On what did he administer the oath to [Zedekiah]? Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: On the inner altar. The five kings were sitting and maligning Nebuchadnezzar before Zedekiah and saying to him: ‘The kingdom is not suitable for Nebuchadnezzar, but rather it is suitable for you, as you are from the offspring of David.’ He, too, maligned Nebuchadnezzar and said: ‘I saw that he was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ Immediately, they sent [a message] to the king, saying: ‘This Jew who enters and exits before you without permission said about you: I saw that Nebuchadnezzar was ripping the flesh of a hare and eating it.’ That is what is written: “Zedekiah rebelled against the king of Babylon” (II Kings 24:20). Immediately, he (Nebuchadnezzar.) came and settled in Daphne of Antioch and the Great Sanhedrin went to greet him. When he saw that they were all men of noble form, he issued a command and had seats of honor brought for them, and he seated them. He said to them: ‘Teach me the Torah.’ Immediately they began reading each and every portion and translating it before him. When they reached the portion of vows: “A man who takes a vow” (Numbers 30:3), he said to them: ‘If he wishes to renege on it, can he or can he not do so?’ They said to him: ‘He can go to a Sage and [the Sage] can nullify his vow for him.’ He said to them: ‘It seems to me that you nullified for Zedekiah the oath that he took to me.’ Immediately, he decreed and had them placed down on the ground. That is what is written: “The elders of the daughter of Zion sit on the ground, are silent.” “They have placed dust [on their heads],” they began mentioning the merit of Abraham, as it is written: “I am dust and ashes” (Genesis 18:27). “Have girded themselves with sackcloth,” they began mentioning the merit of Jacob, as it is written: “He placed sackcloth on his loins” (Genesis 37:34). (The Sages began to pray to God for mercy in the merit of Abraham and Jacob, both of whom took oaths and were careful to fulfill them (Etz Yosef; see Genesis 14:22, 28:20).) What did they do to them? They tied their hair to horses’ tails and had them run from Jerusalem to Lod. That is what is written: “The virgins of Jerusalem have lowered their heads to the ground.” (They did so in mourning for the Sages. Alternatively, the Sages are alluded to with the term virgins because of their purity.)

“Mordekhai knew everything that had been done, and Mordekhai rent his garments and donned sackcloth and ashes. He went out in the midst of the city and cried a loud and bitter cry” (Esther 4:1). “Mordekhai knew everything that had been done, and Mordekhai rent his garments.” Benjamin caused the tribes [his brothers] to rend; that is what is written: “They rent their garments” (Genesis 44:13). Where was he caused to rend? It was in Shushan the citadel; that is what is written: “Mordekhai rent his garments,” and he was from the tribe of Benjamin. (The midrash is stating that the fact that Mordekhai had to rend his garments is in some respects a punishment for Binyamin having caused his brothers to have to rend their garments. This is because he was not careful enough and did not notice that the silver goblet had been placed in his sack (Etz Yosef).) “He donned sackcloth and ashes.” Rabbi Aivu said: Once Jacob our patriarch adopted sackcloth, as it is written: “He placed sackcloth on his loins” (Genesis 37:34), it never again left his descendants. It is written about Ahab: “He placed sackcloth on his flesh” (I Kings 21:27); his son Yoram: “The people saw, and behold, the sackcloth was on his flesh” (II Kings 6:30); Mordekhai, “He donned sackcloth and ashes.” “He [Esau] cried a loud and bitter cry” (Genesis 27:34). Where was he repaid? In Shushan, as it is stated: “[Mordekhai] cried a loud and bitter cry.” Rabbi Ḥanin said: Anyone who says that the All-Merciful is One who forgoes, his innards will be forgone. He is forbearing, but then collects His due. Know that Jacob caused Esau to cry one cry, as it is written: “He cried a loud and bitter cry” [and as a result, Jacob’s descendant, Mordekhai, cried a loud and bitter cry].

(Gen. 44:5, 13:) IS NOT THIS THE ONE FROM WHICH MY LORD DRINKS … ? SO THEY RENT THEIR CLOTHES…. The Holy One said to them: You caused your father's clothes to be rent for nothing (in Gen. 37:34); so you are rending < your clothes > for nothing. (Gen. R. 84:20; 92:8.) (Gen. 44:5, cont.:) THEN EACH ONE LOADED HIS ASS. Not one of them was required for his ass. (Tanh., Gen. 10:10, probably has the correct reading: “Not one of them was required to assist his companion.”) So they arose and, striking Benjamin on his shoulder, said to him: Oh you thief, you son of a thief, you have shamed me! You are your mother's son. Thus did she {your mother} shame our father (according to Gen. 31:19): AND RACHEL STOLE THE HOUSEHOLD GODS < OF HER FATHER >. By virtue of these blows with which they smote him on his shoulders, he was worthy of having the Divine Presence rest on his shoulders. It is so stated (of Benjamin in Deut. 33:12): AND HE (the Lord) DWELLS BETWEEN HIS SHOULDERS.

Another interpretation: Just as Jacob hid from his father for twenty-two years, so did Joseph hide from his father for twenty-two years. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH. (So Rashi with considerable explanation on Gen. 37:34.) R. Levi said: Rabbi Johanan said: Wherever it says, HE WAS, the HE saw three worlds. (Cf. Gen. R. 30:8; Esth. R. 6:3.) It is written of Noah (in Gen. 6:9): HE WAS PERFECT. He saw the world when it was inhabited before the flood came, he saw it destroyed, and he saw it afterwards in its restoration. It is therefore said of him: HE WAS. In the case of Moses, it is written (in Exod. 3:1): HE WAS TENDING < THE FLOCK OF HIS FATHER-IN-LAW JETHRO, THE PRIEST OF MIDIAN >…. He saw Israel before the bondage tightened its grip, he saw the bondage, and {they} [he] saw them when they had been redeemed. [Of Mordecai it is written] (in Esth. 2:5): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A CERTAIN JEW IN THE CITADEL OF SHUSHAN. He saw them (Israel) before they were enslaved at the hand of Haman, he saw them under the edicts which had been decreed against them, and he saw them in their redemption. Of Job it is written (in Job 1:1): THERE WAS (literally: HE WAS) A MAN IN THE LAND OF < UZ >, and he saw three worlds. He was whole, he suffered afflictions, and he was healed. So also in the case of Joseph, HE WAS is written of him (in Gen. 37:2): THESE ARE THE GENERATIONS OF JACOB: JOSEPH AT THE AGE OF SEVENTEEN WAS (literally: HE WAS) TENDING < THE FLOCK WITH HIS BROTHERS >….

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9; Gen. R. 95:2.) < He was sent > because our father Jacob thought that Judah had killed Joseph because he had brought him the tunic, about which it is stated (in Gen. 37:33): HE RECOGNIZED IT AND SAID: MY SON'S TUNIC! AN EVIL BEAST HAS EATEN HIM. Now AN EVIL BEAST is nothing but a lion. (According to Gen. 49:9, JUDAH IS A LION’S WHELP.) So Jacob said to him: You have torn him to pieces, and you are going to tear his brother to pieces. You would not have torn him to pieces except out of jealousy. Immediately (there follows in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS….

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

We can now understand these verses on two levels. 1) Part of Jacob would die first, and only the Israel part of Jacob would survive. This condition would exist until the news that Joseph was still alive. This is why G–d hinted to Jacob at the time when he mourned the death of his mother that he would experience a punishment for not observing the commandment of honoring father and mother during the twenty-two years he had remained at Laban's. As a matter of fact, Joseph's separation from his father, during which time his father continued mourning for him, lasted twenty-two years (as explained by Rashi on Genesis 37,34, where he refers to Jacob's statement to Laban in 31,41: זה לי עשרים שנה בביתך, "these twenty years I have spent in your house, etc."). Jacob explained to Laban that in the end he would be punished for not having left Laban's house much sooner. According to Rashi the words זה לי, mean that "this is my sin."

When you calculate the thirteen years that Yaakov [spent] with Lavan after he married Leah, and she gave birth to [Levi] after about two years - as the pregnancies of the three brothers, Reuven, Shimon and Levi, add up to seven months for each one - it comes out that Levi was eleven years old when they left from there. Add upon them six months that he [spent] on the way and eighteen months that he [spent] in Sukkot, summer, winter and summer - which are two years - behold, Levi is thirteen years of age in their going to Shekhem, and he is [still] called a man - Rashi. And he was not precise in his commentary on the Torah, Parshat Vayeshev, on the verse (Genesis 37:34), "and he mourned for his son many days," as [there] he explained that it was six months in Beit El, which is after the story of Shekhem.

וימצא הגביע באמתחת בנימין, “the goblet was discovered in the feeding bag of Binyamin.” His other brothers began to shame him by calling him “thief,” and other disparaging names, referring to his mother who had stolen the teraphim of her father Lavan (Genesis 31,19). They also struck him on his shoulders. Seeing that Binyamin had been unjustly suspected by his brothers of being a thief he was compensated by G’d in that the Holy Temple was erected on his tribal territory. This is what Moses meant in his blessing of Binyamin (Deut. 33,12) when he said ובין כתיפיו ישכון that G’d’s Presence would reside between “the shoulders of Binyamin.” He also became the ancestor of Mordechai, who had torn his garments in lament for the fate that threatened the Jewish people at the hands of Haman (Esther 4,1). The brothers deserved to have to rend their garments (verse 13) seeing they had caused their father to rend his garments (Genesis 37,34) when he mourned the presumed death of Joseph. Everything that befell the brothers was in the nature of the punishment fitting the crime. Menashe, Joseph’s firstborn, acted as his father’s emissary in all these matters as the Torah describes him as “in charge of Joseph’s palace” (verse 1) and Targum Yonatan writes that Menashe was the individual the Torah referred to. Seeing that Menashe allowed himself to become part of this deception and caused the brothers to rend their clothing in frustration, his tribal territory was rent, i.e. was divided, part of it being on the East Bank of the river Jordan.

Three. And so we learn in Toras Kohanim: Many days, three; or perhaps it means ten? It says “days” and it says “many.” The minimum number for [the plural] “days” is two; so too, the minimum number for [the adjective] “many” is three. Perhaps two and three equals five? But does it say “days and many”? etc. We need not ask from the phrase “many days” regarding Yaakov where Scripture writes (Bereishis 37:34): “He mourned for his son for many days,” and Rashi explains it means twenty-two years. This is because regarding Yaakov, we cannot explain it means three days, for what would Scripture be informing us [by saying] that he wept for three days? Any man would mourn three days! Furthermore, regarding the laws of the Torah where it is written, “her [blood-]flow, many days,” and one must give a minimum amount for the matter. Otherwise, we would not know how many [days] constitutes a zovoh, thus, one must explain there a minimum amount. And that is: If you hold onto the minimum amount you will take hold, but if you take hold of too much, you will lose everything, and that is the Torah’s measure. However, the verse, “He mourned for his son for many days,” only comes to tell us an excessive amount, and we do not need to know any minimum measurement — how many days, no more or no less. Scripture does not depart from its plain meaning (Gur Aryeh).

AT THIRTEEN, THE COMMANDMENTS. Rav: for the verse says, “should a man or woman commit one of the sins of man” (Numbers 5:6), and in the story of Shechem the verse says “and the two sons of Jacob, Simon and Levi, the brothers of Dina, each [Heb. ish] took their swords” (Genesis 34:25), and Levi was thirteen at the time, and is called ish, a man. Rashi: consider that Jacob spent another thirteen yars with Laban after marrying Leah. If one allows seven months for each of her pregnancies, then since Levi was the third pregnancy, he was born about two years in. He would then have been eleven years old when they left. Add to that the six months they spent on the road and the eighteen months—a summer, a winter, and another summer—that they spent in Sukkot, which makes two years altogether, and it turns out that Levi was thirteen years old when they arrived at Shechem, and was called ish, a man. In his commentary on the Torah, in parashat Vayeshev, on the verse “and he mourned his son many days” (Genesis 37:34), Rashi is not being precise when he writes that six months of that two-year period were spent in Beit El, as that happened after the incident in Shechem. [*See Zavim, 2:1.]

Yaakov tore his robes, and placed sackcloth on his loins. He mourned for his son for many days.

And Jakob rent his clothes, and wrapped sackcloth on his loins, and mourned for his son many days.

And its saying, all of his sons and all of his daughters, hints to it being in the way of that which [the sages], may their memory be blessed, said (Moed Katan 27b), "Anyone who cries too much for his deceased, will, God forbid, cry for another death." And that is why until the end of three days, his sons and his daughters did not arise to comfort him. Just the opposite, they cried with him. But after three days of mourning passed, then all of his sons and all of his daughters arose, etc. That is to say that it is appropriate for him to be concerned about his children and to be consoled by their words of comfort and to stop crying. Yet he refused to be consoled and said, "I will rather go down to the grave as a mourner". Meaning, I am not like others who cry for their dead, who will, as a result of this, be visited by something not good, God forbid. Rather, I am crying about myself, since the Holy One, blessed be He, told me, "This is a sign given over to you, that if none of your sons dies in your lifetime, you can be certain never to see Geihinnom," like the sages' statement, may their memory be blessed. (Rashi on this verse, and see Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9.) And that is [the meaning of why] I am crying: Since, I will, God forbid, go down, etc. And that is why his father cried over him, and did not stop crying even after the three days.

Genesis 45,24. “do not quarrel on the way.” ‎‎Rashi does not follow the traditional translation, but says ‎that Joseph told the brothers not to engage in halachic ‎discussions, and the subsequent differences of opinions resulting ‎while you are on the journey. If Rashi is correct, we must ‎try and understand why the brothers’ father, Yaakov, did not give ‎the brothers similar instructions governing their conduct during ‎their journey to Egypt?‎ Besides, how could Joseph arrogate to himself the right to ‎give such instructions, when we have it on the authority of ‎‎Kidushin 30 that a person should strive to divide the ‎activities he performs (equally) into the three parts of his life, ‎devoting one third to the study of the written part of the Torah, ‎another to the study of the oral part of the Torah, ‎‎(Mishnah) and the third part to the discussions on the oral ‎part of the Torah in the Talmud. One difficulty of that statement ‎is that we do not know how long we are going to live, so how can ‎we make the correct division? The Talmud therefore corrects ‎itself, saying that what is meant is the way we divide each day of ‎our lives. It follows that each one of us is duty bound to study ‎some halachah on a daily basis. So how could Joseph forbid ‎this to his brothers?‎ The statement in the Talmud can be seen as plausible if we ‎first consider two premises upon which it is built. 1) Yaakov had a ‎tradition that he need not fear ever being consigned to ‎‎gehinom provided that none of his children died during his ‎lifetime. (Rashi 37,35 based on a Tanchuma Vayigash ‎‎9. 2). A statement by our sages that the combined lifetimes of the ‎patriarchs would be 500 years, corresponding to ‎כימי השמים על ‏הארץ‎, (Deut.11,21). [According to a number of ‎commentators this verse describes the “distance” between earth ‎and the celestial regions through the intervening ‎רקיע‎, outer ‎space, being equivalent to 502 “years.” The combined lifetimes of ‎the patriarchs, were 502 years, though more than half of these ‎overlapped, and we do not know the criteria applied here, i.e. ‎‎“light years,” i.e. the time it takes light to traverse this distance, ‎or whatever other criteria are referred to. Ed.]‎ If a human being were to know how long he was going to live ‎on this earth, he would be able to apportion one third of his life ‎to the respective study of Torah, Mishnah, and ‎‎Gemara. Based on the above calculation, when Yaakov saw ‎that Joseph had disappeared, he concluded that he must be dead, ‎so that one of the premises, i.e. that he would not have to worry ‎about spending time in gehinom had already lost its ‎comforting meaning. From that moment on he became afraid ‎that the second premise we have mentioned could also be ‎compromised, as he had no idea how long he would live. He was ‎therefore unable to instruct his sons to leave out the study of ‎‎halachah, i.e. gemara, for a single day. Joseph, who was ‎aware that his father had no reason to worry, as all his sons were ‎alive and well, was able to issue such a command without ‎endangering the spiritual future of his father. The brothers would ‎have lots of time to make up for the halachot they had not ‎studied while on the journey to bring good news to their father.‎

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to accept consolations;” he felt that he had been guilty for having sent Joseph on this errand in the first place.

כי ארד אל בני שאולה, the word: אל, usually translated as “to,” in this case means the same as על, “on account of,” Yaakov foresees that he will wind up in his grave, still in mourning over having been the cause of his beloved son’s tragic and premature death.

ויבן אותו אביו, his father wept over him;” according to Bereshit Rabbah 84,21, this does not refer to Yaakov, about whose mourning we have already read, but refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive; [according to different opinions quoted there while Yitzchok ostentatiously shared Yaakov’s grief, this was only when he was in the presence of his son. He was aware that Joseph was alive, but did not reveal this to Yaakov, as he felt it was inappropriate to reveal something to Yaakov that G-d apparently had deliberately kept secret from him.] As Rav said to his son Hiyya, when the latter’s wife was in mourning: In her presence practice mourning, but out of her presence do not practice mourning. The source for this is the Talmud in Moed Katan folio 20.

וכל בנותיו, “and all of his daughters;” according to Rabbi Yehudah, twin sisters had been born for Yaakov with the birth of all of his sons. These had been married by their respective half-brothers, sons of different mothers. According to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemyah, all the sons married wives of Canaanite origin. If he were correct, why does the Torah in our verse not speak of “all his daughter-in-law?“ Rabbi Nechemyah, aware of this, would reply, that in the whole world daughters-in-law are referred to as daughters. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) [Naomi, in the Book of Ruth, certainly is not described as calling her daughters-in-law, “daughters.” Ed.] It is difficult to understand Rabbi Nechemyah, as we all know to what length Avraham had gone to prevent Yitzchok from marrying a wife of Canaanite descent. Yitzchok too had commanded Yaakov not to marry a woman of Canaanite descent and had sent him all the way to Charan to avoid such a union. (Genesis 28,1) Nonetheless, Yehudah married a woman of Canaanite descent. (Genesis 38,2 ברת גבר תגרא, (daughter of a business man, according to Onkelos איש כנעני means business man, traveling salesman) Onkelos therefore accepts the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who said that twin daughters were born with all of Yaakov’s sons.) This is also how we have to understand Genesis 46,10: ושאול בן הכנענית, “and Sha-ul, son of a female merchant.” According to Rabbi Nechemyah’s approach to the subject, there is no need for what sound like far fetched solutions to our problem. The word כנעני or כנענית in either of the verses that bothered us, are simply understood as elsewhere in the Bible, as people of Canaanite descent. We do have a problem if we accept Rabbi Yehudah’s interpretation, an interpretation lacking specific sources in the written text. The Talmud, tractate Yumah folio 28, states that Avaraham had voluntarily observed all the commandments in the written and oral Torah, even including the rabbinic commandment known as eyruv tavshilin, a method of how to prepare food when the day after a festival is a Sabbath, and preparation of food on the festival for the Sabbath is not admissible. He is also supposed to have observed the law of yibbum, marrying the widow of a brother who died without having ever had any children. (Compare Genesis 38,8) where Yehudah, Er’s father, gave Er’s widow Tamar to Onan, his brother, as a wife, in order for him to become posthumously and vicariously a father. If these laws were operative prior to the Torah having been revealed at Mount Sinai to the Jewish people, how could Yaakov have married two sisters while the first sister had still been alive? Also, how could any of the sons of Yaakov have married their sisters? We could answer that although these laws were already known by tradition since Avraham’s time, they had not become obligatory until after revealed at Mount Sinai. Our forefathers were free to choose the parts of the commandments they wished to observe voluntarily even they had been privy to them through the Holy Spirit. When the Talmud in Pessachim, folio 119, tells us that in the future (afterlife) at the meal prepared by G–d for the righteous, that when Yaakov was being honoured presiding over the grace after the meal, he declined the honour, saying that seeing he had wed two sisters while both were alive, he was not worthy of that honour. Clearly he considered what he had done as having been improper. It is possible to argue that having been aware that what he had done would qualify for a penalty if he would do so after the revelation at Mount Sinai, he felt that he deserved at least a minor penalty. If he decided in favour of committing an act deserving of a minor penalty, he did so because he wished to marry only wives who were personally righteous, and these were hard to find, especially considering the age at which he had a chance to get married. As it turned out, even one of these two sisters who was a righteous woman did not by herself bore for him all the twelve tribes.

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him (losing him).” According to Rashi, the word: “his father,” in this verse refers to Yitzchok, Yaakov’s father. He was however, not mourning him as he knew that Joseph was still alive. He did not want to reveal this to Yaakov out of respect for G–d, who had not seen fit to reveal this to his son. (B‘reshit Rabbah 84,21) Rashi had already explained that the brothers had sworn a solemn oath one to another not to reveal what they had done Joseph to anyone, and they had included G–d in that oath of theirs. When, after 22 years they came to Egypt and found Joseph alive, they cancelled this oath. This released G–d also, and that is why the Torah wrote that upon hearing that Joseph was alive and well, the bothers’ father Yaakov “revived,” i.e. again was blessed with Holy Spirit. (Genesis 45,27). From this verse it is clear that ever since Joseph’s disappearance he had not enjoyed the presence of the Holy Spirit. From this entire chapter we learn and can prove that when an entire congregation unanimously declares something or someone as “banished,” and a single member of that congregation demurs by not accepting that decision, he is bound by the decision of the congregation, nonetheless. After all, Joseph had not been a party to the brothers’ oath, and it had remained in force nonetheless. If Joseph had been part of that oath, the other brothers would not have had to include in their oath. They had been lacking Reuven and Binyamin to make up the necessary quorum by themselves. Although Joseph was aware of this, he did not wish to interfere with that oath by revealing his whereabouts to his father. The author promises to also provide an alternate reason why Joseph did not let his father know during all these years that he had been alive and well. If you were to argue that the ban into which the brothers had put the subject of the sale of Joseph was more stringent than an ordinary such ban where G–d had not been co-opted as a partner, this is not a valid argument, as even nowadays whenever we make such a ban, we add the words: “with the consent of the Lord.” We also find this approach to oaths in the Book of Samuel 14,24, where King Sha-ul had sworn that any man eating food before evening (the day of the battle) and the army had defeated their enemy, would be cursed, i.e. executed, that his own son Jonathan, who had tasted some honey, not having been aware that his father had pronounced such an oath, had become aware of someone having violated that oath, as one of the jewels in the breastplate of the High priest had suddenly lost part of its luster. Whenever a tribe performed a commandment, the jewel representing that tribe would shine more forcefully. When a tribe, or member of it, committed a trespass, its jewel would lose its luster. When King Sha-ul found out that the jewel representing his own tribe, that of Binyamin, suddenly did not shine anymore, he realised that the fault must lie with someone of his own tribe and family. He determined who that member of his tribe was by casting lots, as had done Joshua in Joshua 7, when he found out that the jewel representing the tribe of Yehudah had lost its luster. He had cast lots to determine which member of the tribe of Yehudah had been the guilty party. Achan, son of Karmi, was the one who had illegally pocketed some of the loot from the city of Jericho, and he was duly executed after having confessed.

AND HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. Our sages interpreted this as referring to Isaac. (Bereshit Rabbah 84:19. According to the Midrash his father refers to Jacob’s father. Isaac was overcome with grief over Jacob’s trouble.) The truth is that Isaac did not die until Joseph reached the age of twenty-nine. (Thus from this point of view the Midrashic interpretation is possible. I.E.’s accounting is as follows: Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen. 25:26). Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born (see note 7). Thus Isaac was 151 when Joseph was born. Isaac died at the age of 180 (Gen. 35:28), at which time Joseph was 29 years old as Isaac was 151 years older than Joseph. Joseph was 17 when he was sold. Thus Isaac lived 12 years past the year in which Joseph was sold (Weiser).) Some say that the prophetic spirit was removed from both Jacob and Isaac because of their mourning. (The question arises, why didn’t Jacob and Isaac, two prophets, know that Joseph was alive?) They offer proof from Elisha. (That a prophet cannot prophesy when in a state of depression. Cf. II Kings 3:15. Before Elisha, who was then depressed (see Kimchi, ad hoc), prophesied he said, But now bring me a minstrel. And it came to pass, when the minstrel played that the hand of the Lord came upon him.)

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. His daughter and granddaughter. (Dinah his daughter and Sarah the daughter of Asher, as grandchildren are considered children. I.E. comments so because Jacob had only one daughter.)

[TO THE GRAVE.] She’olah means down below, i.e., to the grave. Here the one who translated the Bible for those who err (Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin for the Christians.) erred in translating she’olah as to hell. (Jerome renders she’ol as inferno. However, see Rashi who writes, “The Midrashic interpretation of she’ol is gehenna.”) Proof of his mistranslation is, For the nether-world (she’ol) cannot praise Thee…They that go down into the pit cannot hope for Thy truth (Is. 38:18). (In this verse pit is parallel to she’ol. She’ol thus must mean pit.) Also in Ps. 139:8, heaven is the antithesis of she’ol, (Thus she’ol is the opposite of heaven (sky); it refers to a place on the earth, i.e., the grave.) viz., If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (she’ol) behold Thou art there. Similarly Job states, The nether-world (she’ol) is naked before Him (Job 26:6). (The verse concludes, And destruction (the grave) hath no covering. Now she’ol is parallel to destruction (grave). Hence it, too, must mean grave.) There are many other verses which prove that she’ol does not refer to hell.

ויקומו כל בניו…לנחמו, "All his sons arose in order to comfort him, etc." The Torah is silent about the nature of these words of comfort that were offered to Jacob.

Perhaps the Torah wishes to stress that the comfort was not expressed in words but in the demonstration of how many sons and daughters Jacob had left. They had first observed their father rend his garments, wear sackcloth and carry on mourning for an inordinately long period. This would have been appropriate if Jacob had lost an only son, or even one of relatively few children. Since Jacob had many children, he should have remembered what he had left instead of only harping on what he had lost. His children brought this to Jacob's attention without uttering a word by surrounding him with their combined presence. This was supposed to provide some comfort. Jacob, however, refused to accept comfort, saying that the reason he would mourn Joseph until his own death was that Joseph was one of a kind and there was no substitute for him. The Zohar (volume 1, page 180) goes into greater detail about the mutual affinity of the souls of Jacob and Joseph, etc.

The Torah also hints that Jacob did not view his inability to console himself as a sign that Joseph was not dead though we have a rule that one is unable to console oneself when the person mourned is not actually dead. The reason Jacob could not accept comfort was that he viewed himself as condemned to descend to שאול, to purgatory, because of a tradition (compare Rashi quoting a Tanchuma on ויגש) he had that as long as none of his children would die during his lifetime he could rest assured that he himself would not descend to purgatory.

ויבך אותו, He wept for him. When Jacob explained why he could not respond to manifestations of condolences he had to start weeping again. The Torah stresses the word אביו, his father, in order to make a distinction between himself and all his children. The only person who broke out weeping when Joseph's name was mentioned was his father. Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 considers the word אביו, his father, as a reference to Isaac, Jacob's father.

כל בניו, “all his sons, etc.” These are his actual sons. וכל בנותיו refers to Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” This was because it is impossible to accept such comfort when the person being mourned is still alive. It is a decree by G’d which enables the survivor to gradually “forget” someone who has died and thus be comforted over his loss (compare Rashi). כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, “but I will join my son in She-ol still mourning for him.” He meant that he would be buried while still in mourning for his son as he would never get over this loss. According to Tanchuma Vayigash 9, the word שאולה is a reference to Gehinom, purgatory. Yaakov thought so as he had been certain that not one his children would die during his lifetime. Now that Joseph had died, he felt that this could only have occurred if he himself was destined for purgatory.

ויבך אותו אביו, “his father wept for him.” This is a reference to Yitzchak, Yaakov’s father. Yitzchak wept when he observed the anguish of his son Yaakov and was unable to tell him that actually Joseph was alive. The expression “Yitzchak wept for him,” is to tell us that whereas he “wept,” he did not mourn Joseph as you do not mourn the living.

ויקומו...וכל בנותיו, his daughter and daughters-in-law who were like daughters to him. In Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 Rabbi Yehudah is quoted as saying that a female twin had been born with each of Yaakov’s sons and they married their respective half-brothers. Rabbi Nechemyah, in commenting on the words וכל בנותיו, says that actually Yaakov had only one daughter, i.e. Dinah, but that he wished he had already buried her (as the fact that she had been raped was something he found it hard to live with) [Rashi on that Midrash. Ed] At any rate, we need not take the text so literally, as most people describe their sons-in-law as sons, and their daughters-in-law as daughters.

שאלה, until the grave, i.e. “I will mourn him for the rest of my life.” The meaning of the words

על בנו, instead of the pronoun ending ויתאבלו, is to describe Yaakov’s attitude henceforth, i.e. “I will go join him in his grave.” Compare Samuel II 12,23 where David uses such language explaining that in order to be reunited with the baby son he had just lost he would have to join him in his grave, as the baby would not come back to him and be resurrected. Or, compare the standard expression used by the Torah when people die and they join their ancestors in the grave or hereafter, i.e. ויאסף אל עמיו “he was gathered in to his people” (Genesis 25,17 et al).

ויבך אותו אביו, the reason why the Torah adds the unnecessary word אביו, “his father,” is to demonstrate the serious nature of losing a son who had been constantly the one at his father’s side. The remarkable thing about Joseph had been that although the Torah had described him as occupied tending sheep with his brothers, most of the time he had spent in attending to the needs of his widowed father, whose beloved wife Rachel, Joseph’s mother, had died when Joseph had only been about 6 years old. Whenever an occasion would arise which would have required the services normally rendered by his son Joseph, his absence would rekindle Yaakov’s grief over his fate. According to our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 84,21 the superfluous word אביו refers to Yaakov’s father Yitzchok, who was still alive at the time Joseph was sold, seeing that Yaakov had been born when Yitzchok was 60 years old, in other words Yitzchok only died when Yaakov was 120 years of age. At the time of Joseph’s sale Yitzchok was 168 years old seeing that the separation between Yaakov and Joseph lasted for 22 years, the same length of time as Yaakov had been separated from his father Yitzchok.

AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS. This refers to his daughter and his son’s daughter. (Since Jacob had. only one daughter, Dinah, the expression “and his daughters” in the plural must include some other person. Ramban first suggests that the term includes his granddaughter, Serach the daughter of Asher. See also my Hebrew commentary, pp. 211-2.) Now it is possible that his daughters-in-law are also included in this category, for in Scripture they too are called “daughters,” or as the saying of the Sages has it: (Bereshith Rabbah 84:19.) “A person does not refrain from calling his daughters-in-law ‘daughters.’” So did Naomi say to her daughters-in-law: Go, turn back, my daughters; (Ruth 1:8 and 12.) Nay, my daughters; (Ibid., Verse 13.) Go, my daughter. (Ibid., 2:2.) It is nothing but an expression of love, just as, Hearest thou not, my daughter? (Ibid., Verse 8. This was said by Boaz to Ruth and can certainly not indicate the relationship of daughter or daughter-in-law.)

כי ארד, I will not be consoled but will descend to my grave joining my son while still mourning his death.

ויבך אותו אביו, for a long period of time. Seeing that the line is superfluous, our sages, as quoted by Rashi, added that Yitzchok (his father) wept for the anguish of his son Yaakov although he knew that Joseph had not been killed.

וכל בנתיו AND ALL HIS DAUGHTERS — R Judah said: a twin-sister was born with each of Jacob’s sons and they each took a step-sister to wife (It was these daughters who comforted Jacob) R. Nehemiah said: their wives were Canaanite women and not their step-sisters; what is meant then “by all his daughters”? His daughters-in-law, for a person does not hesitate to call his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

וימאן להתנחם BUT HE REFUSED TO COMFORT HIMSELF — A person does not accept consolation for one living whom he believes to be dead, for with regard to the dead it is decreed that he be forgotten from the heart, but it is not so decreed with regard to the living (Genesis Rabbah 84:20).

ארד אל בני I WILL GO DOWN TO MY SON — This has the same meaning as על בני, on account of my son. There are many examples where אל is used in the sense of על: (2 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because of Saul (ואל) and because of his bloody house”; (1 Samuel 4:21) “(אל) because the ark of God was taken (ואל) and because of the death of her father-in-law and her husband”.

אבל שאלה MOURNING INTO THE GRAVE — According to the literal meaning שאל means “the grave” — whilst I am still in a state of mourning I shall be interred (i.e. even to the day of my burial I shall mourn) and I shall not be comforted all my life. The Midrash explains it to refer to Gehinnom. “This omen has been given me by God: if none of my sons die during my lifetime I may be assured that I shall not see Gehinnom” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayigash 9).

ויגש). ויבך אתו אביו THUS HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM — His father refers to Isaac: he wept for Jacob’s trouble, but he did not mourn for he knew that he (Joseph) was alive (Genesis Rabbah 84:21).

Alle seine Söhne und alle seine Töchter: wohl die Schwiegertöchter "standen auf׳ nicht gingen, kamen, sondern "standen auf, ihn zu trösten. Aufstehen zu einer Tat setzt überall einen vorangehenden Entschluss, eine Ermannung voraus. Sie waren also bis dahin selbst in Schmerz versunken gewesen; hatte doch niemand so viel Schmerz zu empfinden, als eben sie, die Tröstenden. Einen alten Vater untröstlich vor sich zu sehen, jeden heiteren Gedanken sich als Sünde anrechnend, da müsste selbst der hartgesottenste Bösewicht das Gefühl der quälendsten Reue empfinden, selbst so trostlos werden, daß er selbst des Trostes bedürfte, nicht aber Trost zu bringen vermöchte. Warum hat aber keiner den Balsam in die Wunde geträufelt und gesprochen: er lebt? Antwort: Weil dies die größte Grausamkeit gewesen wäre. Ein zerrissenes Kind ist für das Bewusstsein der Eltern nicht verloren, ein ungeratenes mehr als verloren. Wer nicht den Schmerz tausendfach erhöhen wollte, der musste schweigen, bis einmal Josef wiederkehren würde und dann die Freude über den Wiedergefundenen und die Tatsache der Wiederkehr selbst den Gedanken des geübten Verbrechens mildern würden. So hätte er zu dem einen noch zehn Söhne in einem Augenblick verloren.

Er weigerte sich נחם .להתנחם siehe (Bereschit 6, 6): Trösten kann man niemanden, man kann ihm nur Trostgründe geben, die er sich selbst zu Gemüte nehmen und damit eine Umstimmung seiner Stimmung bewirken muss; er aber weigerte sich, es auch nur zu versuchen, diese Umwandlung an sich zu vollbringen. כי ארד אל בני אבל שאלה, nicht als ob der Gram ihn töten sollte, sondern er glaubte, bis an sein Grab trauern zu müssen: sein Sohn darf ihn nicht heiter wiedersehen. Jakob mochte sich auch nach seiner Auffassung Vorwürfe machen. Nach einem so schrecklichen Vorgange hält das Gemüt sehr scharfe Abrechnung und verzeiht sich auch das Leiseste nicht. — ויבך אתו אביו, nicht עליו, sondern בכה .אתו verwandt mit פקה ,פקע ,בקע, alles ein Ausbrechen, ein Frei-werden aus einem Innern. בכה: die Wirkung eines hervorbrechenden Gefühls. בכה על: über eine äußere Veranlassung. בכה את, den Gegenstand gleichsam hinausweinen, ihn fortwährend im Herzen tragen, und die Wirkung dieses im Herzen Tragens durch eine von Zeit zu Zeit sich ins Auge stehlende Träne äußern. Er trägt ihn im Herzen, auch wenn er nicht weint. (יצא] יוע=[בקע]בכה], Träne ist der Schweiß der arbeitenden Seele, Schweiß ist die Träne des arbeitenden Leibes). Bezeichnend steht hier die Träne zuletzt. Jakob jammerte nicht und schrie nicht. Das ויבך bezieht sich auf die spätere Zeit. Wenn die andern heiter waren, stahl sich verstohlen eine Träne in das Auge des Vaters.

וימאן להתנחם, he refused to listen to words of comfort in order not to become guilty of forgetting to mourn.

ויאמר כי ארד אל בני אבל שאולה, he vowed to remain in mourning for the balance of his life. His reason was that he blamed himself for what happened because he had sent his beloved son on such a dangerous errand.

ויבך אותו אביו. Yitzchok wept over Yaakov’s decision to remain in mourning for the rest of his life. As a result of being in mourning he would forfeit Divine inspiration also.

A twin sister was born with each brother... It means that each brother married his brother’s twin, i.e., his paternal but not maternal sister — since a paternal sister is not considered incest for the sons of Noach.

A person cannot accept consolation for one who is alive but is thought to be dead... The question is asked: Did Yaakov not know that consolation cannot be accepted for a live person thought to be dead? If so, why did he mourn over Yoseif? He would know he was alive! The answer is: Yaakov in fact did not know this because “consolation cannot be accepted for one who is alive but thought to be dead,” is learned from the case of Yaakov himself. Heaven decreed that the dead be forgotten, allowing consolation to be accepted. Yet, Yaakov did not accept consolation. Therefore, we derive that consolation cannot be accepted in such a case, and Yaakov was therefore unaware of this. Maharshal answers: When a person agitates himself, he is unaware that his anguish is excessive because he considers all the anguish as nothing.

The same as על בני... It means, “because of my son.” This is because [in this verse,] אל cannot mean “next to” or “to,” as in, “Avimelech came to him (אליו) from Gerar” (26:26), and as in, “He said to him (אליו): ‘I am Adonoy’” (15:7).

While still in mourning will I be buried and not be consoled all of my life... I.e., this mourning will stay with me until I am buried. But not that I will mourn in the grave, for there is neither mourning nor joy there.

If none of my children die in my lifetime then I am assured not to see Gehinom. She’ol is one of Gehinom’s seven names. The rationale [of the sign] is that a person can be judged to twelve months [at most] in Gehinom. If Yaakov’s twelve sons are all alive, corresponding to the twelve months, Gehinom cannot affect him. (Gur Aryeh)

But he did not mourn, for he knew that he was alive. Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written simply, “He wept for him,” as it had written before: “All his sons and daughters rose to console him.” [Why does it say, “His father wept for him”?] A further question: Why does it say, “He wept,” rather than, “He mourned,” as it said before: “He mourned for his son”? Thus Rashi explains that it refers to Yitzchok, about whom it cannot be said, “He mourned,” for he knew Yoseif was alive. And we need not ask how Yitzchok knew, as Hashem might have revealed it to him to save him anguish; for the ban was only against revealing it to Yaakov.

All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him; but he refused to be consoled despite the efforts of those around him. He said: Nothing will change the present reality; for I will descend mourning to the grave, to my son. His father wept for him. Although Jacob did not have absolute proof that Joseph died as his body was not recovered, there was significant circumstantial evidence that Joseph was mauled.

וכל בנותיו, “and all his daughters.” His daughter and his granddaughter. Some commentators say that his daughters–in-law are included in the term “his daughters.”

וימאן להתנחם, “he refused to be comforted.” According to the plain meaning, Yaakov could not accept words of comfort as he considered himself partially responsible for what happened, seeing that he had sent Joseph alone on a dangerous mission.

“All his sons and daughters sought to comfort him” [37:35]. All of his sons and daughters got up to console and comfort Jacob. Bahya writes. The daughters, means Dinah and Serach, the daughter of Asher. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:35.) However, Rashi writes. The daughters, means that a daughter was born with each son, and Reuben took her as his wife. So too, a daughter was born with each of Jacob’s sons and that son took her as a wife. So says Rabbi Judah. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:35.) Ramban writes here. The six children of Leah took the daughters that were born to the other six children. The other six children took the daughters that were born with the children of Leah. Rabbi Nehemiah said that the children of Jacob took wives from the Canaanites. The verse calls them daughters of Jacob; because the custom is that the son’s wife is called a daughter. (Ramban, Genesis, 38:2.)

“I will go down mourning to my son in Sheol” [37:35]. Jacob said: I will mourn until I will come to Gehenna, because Joseph has been taken away from me. I know well prophetically that none of my children should die while I am alive. (Ibid.) Ibn Shuaib writes. Why did Jacob engage in so much anguish? The explanation is that Joseph was not yet twenty years old and Jacob thought that the Holy One does not punish a person for his sins until he is twenty years old. (Ibn Shuaib, Derashot, I: 78.) One asks a question. Even if the Holy One causes that one forgets the deceased and one cannot forget someone who is still alive, Jacob was wise, why did he not think that he must be alive because I cannot forget him? The explanation is that Jacob tore his garments at first. He thought that he had died and later when he could not forget him, he thought that he might still be alive, but he might be in a prison or in trouble. That is why he mourned all his days. Devek Tov asks a question. Why was Jacob not punished that he did not honor his father Isaac for fourteen years? The explanation is that Isaac was very happy that Jacob was studying Torah and did not insist on the honor due him. Why then was Jacob punished that he was in the house of Laban? Rebecca and Isaac told him to go there. The explanation is that Rebecca sent Deborah immediately after him that Jacob should return home. However, Jacob tarried because of Laban’s daughters, to marry them, and he did not honor his mother and father. (Devek Tov, Genesis, 37:35 and note, samech.)

“His father bewailed him” [37:35]. Rashi asks a question here. Why did Isaac also not cry over the anguish of his son? The explanation is that “His father bewailed him” means that Isaac his grandfather cried and therefore this must be Isaac because Isaac knew well that Joseph was alive, but he cried for the anguish of his son Jacob. It is not written that Isaac mourned and engaged in mourning practices, since the Holy One had let him know that Joseph was still alive, but Isaac was not supposed to tell, because he was under a ban not to tell. (Rashi, Genesis, 37:35.) Similarly, The Holy One informed Benjamin that Joseph was still alive and he was silent. Therefore, the precious stone of Benjamin was in the garment of the High Priest. This precious stone is called Yeshpeh [Jasper], which means yesh peh. That is, he had a mouth to speak and he knew about Joseph, but said nothing. If there was a ban, how did the Holy One tell it to Isaac and Benjamin? The explanation is that the ban was only not to tell Jacob. (Bahya, Genesis, 37:33.)

[2] additional interpretation: In the second year of Darius, why did The Holy One, blessed be He, choose to mention Zion? It is because everything that happened to Joseph also happened to Zion, [and why mention] Joseph? "And Israel loved Joseph" (Genesis 37:3), and [Order of lines inverted for clarity.] "The LORD loves the gates of Zion" (Psalms 87:2). "Joseph's brothers hated him" (Genesis 37:5), and "Zion was hated for the voice of her groaning" (Jeremiah 12:8). Joseph, "Behold, we are binding sheaves" (Genesis 37:7), and Zion, "Let Zion come, let her rejoice in her king" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph's brothers said to him, "Do you indeed reign over us?" (Genesis 37:8), and Zion says, "Your God reigns over you" (Isaiah 52:7). Joseph dreamed a dream (Genesis 37:5), and Zion says, "When the Lord restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream" (Psalm 126:1). Joseph said, "Here comes that dreamer" (Genesis 37:19), and Zion says, "For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not be quiet" (Isaiah 62:1). Joseph said, "Come now, let me show you the kindness of my brothers" (Genesis 37:14), and Zion says, "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf" (Jeremiah 29:7). Joseph's brothers saw him from afar (Genesis 37:18), and Zion says, "The Lord appeared to me from far away" (Jeremiah 31:3). Joseph and before they approached him to kill him (Genesis 37:18). "They conspire against your people; they plot against those you cherish." (Psalm 83:3). "And they stripped Joseph of his coat" (Genesis 37:23), "And they will strip off your clothes and take your fine jewelry" (Ezekiel 23:26). "And they threw him into the pit" (Genesis 37:24), "He has walled me in so I cannot escape; he has weighed me down with chains" (Lamentations 3:7). "The pit where there is no water" (Genesis 37:24), "They threw Jeremiah into a cistern, where he sank into the mud" (Jeremiah 38:6). "They sat down to eat bread" (Genesis 37:25), "Those who once ate delicacies are destitute in the streets" (Lamentations 4:5). "And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit" (Genesis 37:28), "And they pulled Jeremiah up with ropes and lifted him out of the cistern" (Jeremiah 38:13). "And Jacob tore his clothes" (Genesis 37:34), "The Lord did what he had planned; he carried out his word" (Lamentations 2:17). Joseph put a sackcloth on his waist (Genesis 37:34), and Zion put on sackcloth, lamented, and girded herself with mourning (Isaiah 22:12). Joseph refused to be comforted (Genesis 37:35), and Zion said, "Do not comfort me" (Isaiah 22:4). Joseph was sold by his brothers to the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28), and Zion and the sons of Judah and the sons of Jerusalem were sold to the Greeks (Joel 4:6). Behold, what happened to Joseph happened to Zion. The good things are also mentioned; "Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance" (Genesis 39:6), and Zion, "This beautiful city, admired by all" (Lamentations 2:15). "Joseph is not greater in this house than I" (Genesis 39:9), but "The Lord is great in Zion" (Psalm 99:2). "The Lord was with Joseph" (Genesis 39:21), and "My eyes and my heart will be there always" (1 Kings 9:3). "And Joseph found grace in his sight" (Genesis 39:21), and "Therefore, Zion, you are redeemed by mercy". Joseph was taken out of the pit, his clothes were changed (Genesis 41:14), and Zion, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). Joseph was clothed in fine linen* [*שש means = something "bleached white", byssus (Latin = cotton), linen, fine linen, also: alabaster, similar stone, marble. Also means number 6] (Genesis 41:42), and Zion, "Awake, awake, put on your strength, O Zion!" (Isaiah 52:1). Joseph was redeemed after two years, from the day he interpreted the dreams of the butler and the baker (Genesis 41:1), and it came to pass after two full years that Zion was redeemed in the second year of Darius (Haggai 1:1). Therefore, David said, "You have redeemed your people with your arm, the sons of Jacob and Joseph" (Psalm 77:16).

“All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him, but he refused to be consoled; he said: For I will descend mourning to the grave, to my son. His father wept for him” (Genesis 37:35). “All his sons and all his daughters arose” – how many daughters did he have? He had one, and if only he had buried her. It is, rather, that a person does not refrain from calling his son-in-law his son and his daughter-in-law his daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: The tribes married their sisters. That is what is written: “All his sons and all his daughters arose to console him.” (This view accords with the statement that each of Jacob’s sons was born with a twin daughter (see Bereshit Rabba 82:8). Each son then married one of the daughters of Jacob from a different mother, as according to the Noahide laws one is permitted to marry a half-sister from a different mother (Etz Yosef). ) “But he refused to be consoled” – a certain noblewoman asked Rabbi Yosei, she said to him: It is written: “For Judah prevailed over his brothers” (I Chronicles 5:2), and it is written: “Judah was consoled, and he went up to his sheepshearers” (Genesis 38:12), (His two sons and his wife died, and he was able to be consoled. And from the fact that the verse states that Judah prevailed over his brothers, it is implied that he was the most elevated and that his conduct is worthy of emulation (Etz Yosef). ) and this one, the father of them all, “refused to be consoled”? He said to her: One is consoled for the dead, but one is not consoled for the living. “His father wept for him” – this is Isaac. Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon said: When [Jacob] was with him he would weep, but when he would leave him, he would go, bathe, and anoint himself with oil. (Isaac was a prophet and knew the truth about Joseph. ) Why did he not reveal it to him? He said: The Holy One blessed be He did not reveal it to him and I will reveal it to him? Rabbi Simon said: This was based on: Anyone for whom one mourns, one mourns with him. (If one’s close relative is in mourning, one mourns together with him (Moed Katan 20b). )

“And the sons of Benjamin: Bela, and Bekher, and Ashbel, Gera, and Naaman, Eḥi, and Rosh, Mupim, and Ḥupim, and Ard” (Genesis 46:21). “And the sons of Benjamin: Bela…” – when Joseph stood with Benjamin, he asked him: ‘Do you have sons?’ He said to him: ‘Yes.’ He said to him: ‘How many?’ He said to him: ‘Ten.’ He said: ‘What are their names?’ He said to him: ‘I had one brother. His actions were fine and pleasant, and he was taken captive from me, and I gave them names based on his experience. “Bela” – as he was swallowed [nivla] up from me; “Bekher” – as he was my firstborn [bekhor] [brother]; “Ashbel” – as he was taken captive [nishba] from me; “Gera” – as he resides [gar] in another land; “Naaman” – as his actions were fine [na’im] and pleasant [ne’imim]; “Eḥi” – as he was my full-fledged brother [aḥi]; “and Rosh” – as he was a leader [rosh] for me, and he was the head [roshan] of his brothers, as it is stated: “May his blessing rest on the head of [lerosh] Joseph” (Deuteronomy 33:16); “Mupim” – as he was very fine [yafeh] in all respects, and all the halakhot that Shem and Ever transmitted to Jacob, he transmitted to him. (Mupim – mo pihem – directly from their mouths.) “And Ḥupim” – as he did not see my wedding canopy [beḥupati] and I did not see his wedding canopy [beḥupato], and they concealed [veḥipu] matters in his regard and said: “A savage beast devoured him” (Genesis 37:33). “And Ard” – as he was like a rose [vered]. “And Ard” – after: [Jacob said:] “For I will descend [ered] mourning to my son to the grave” (Genesis 37:35).’ “And the sons of Naphtali: Yaḥtze'el, and Guni, and Yetzer, and Shilem” (Genesis 46:24). “And the sons of Naphtali” – their [creations] were twisted [muftalin] on seventy-two heddles; (A heddle is an integral part of a loom.) as they twisted [potelin] the work of heddles. (They were expert weavers. ) “Yaḥtze'el” – they broke [sheḥitzu] the gods in their hand and they cut [metzaḥtzeḥin] with their teeth and would sneer with their lips. (They would break idols, and make cutting remarks and disdainful facial expressions about idolatry (see Yefeh To’ar; Etz Yosef). However, see Matnot Kehuna, where these statements are interpreted to mean that they fashioned idols and made disparaging comments toward God. ) “And Guni” – they spoke in derogatory [megunim] language. “And Yetzer” – their [evil] inclination was stronger than that of all [other] people. “And Shilem” – they were devoted [mushlamim] to their inclination (Alternatively, they were devoted to God despite their strong evil inclination (Yefeh To’ar). ) and would repay [umshalmin] goodness with evil.

(5) And it is written, “If they dig down into the grave (she’ol), (The term she’ol is difficult to translate. I have opted for the word “grave,” in keeping with Rashi’s translation of the term in Genesis 37:35. Note, however, that in his midrashic reading of the term, Rashi translates she’ol as gehinnom (Hell). The word is also sometimes rendered as “the Underworld” in translation, and various concordances translate it as “the world of the dead.”) from there My hand will take them…” (Amos 9:2).

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

(Gen. 38:1:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. Let our master instruct us: If a ruin falls on the Sabbath, and it is not known whether Israelites are there or not, is it legitimate to clear away < the rubble > over them on the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught (in Yoma 8:7): IF A FALLING STRUCTURE FALLS ON SOMEONE [ON THE SABBATH], AND THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER HE IS THERE OR NOT THERE, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS A FOREIGNER OR AN ISRAELITE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY [THE RUBBLE] FOR HIS SAKE. IF THEY FIND HIM ALIVE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY < THE REST OF THE RUBBLE > FOR HIS SAKE; BUT, IF HE IS DEAD, THEY SHALL LEAVE HIM. (The Mishnah text here (without Buber’s bracketed emendations) is that found in the Yerushalmi.) It is written concerning the Sabbath (in Exod. 31:14): WHOEVER PROFANES IT (the Sabbath) SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH; yet our masters have taught: they shall clear away [the rubble] over one who is alive on the Sabbath. R. Eleazar ben Azariah said: If circumcision, which < affects > only one of two hundred and forty-eight < human > organs, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more would two hundred and forty-eight organs under stone override the Sabbath for someone? (Shab. 132a; Yoma 85b; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shabbata 1.) R. Simeon ben Menasya says: Defile one Sabbath for him so that he may keep a lot of Sabbaths. So, if you clear away < the rubble > over someone to restore a single soul to life, I will also do for you what is written (in Ezek. 37:12): < THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD > BEHOLD, I WILL OPEN YOUR GRAVES < AND RAISE YOU UP OUT FROM YOUR GRAVES, O MY PEOPLE, AND BRING YOU UNTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL >. A certain heretic (min) asked our Rabbi: Is it possible for the dead to live again? Your ancestors do not acknowledge < the belief >, yet you do acknowledge < it >! What is written about Jacob (in Gen. 37:35)? THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE TO COMFORT HIM [BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED]. If he had known that the dead would live < again >, would he have refused to be comforted and said (ibid., cont.): NO I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING UNTO MY SON IN SHEOL? Our Rabbi said to him: You are the biggest fool in the world. < It was > because our father Jacob knew through the Holy Spirit that Joseph was alive. For that reason he did not accept consolation over him. After all, one does not accept consolation over one who is alive. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:6; see Soferim 21 (43b).)

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

(Gen. 37:35:) NO, I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. What is the meaning of MOURNING TO … SHEOL? Perhaps I shall die the death of the wicked in this world and in the world to come. Why? Because the Holy One had promised to give me twelve tribes, and here one of them is dead. Perhaps I was not worthy of them, and I am to die in both worlds. (The midrash regards Jacob’s mourning as the equivalent of dying in the present world and his descent to Sheol as a second death.) For this reason he said (in vs. 35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Do you want to know what he said when he saw that he was alive? (Gen. 46:30:) THEN ISRAEL SAID UNTO JOSEPH: NOW LET ME DIE. What was the reason for him to say: NOW LET ME DIE? He simply said: When they came and told me Joseph was dead, I said: I was to die in both worlds. Now that I have seen that you are alive, I am receiving the good news that I am only dying one time. NOW LET ME DIE.

(Gen. 37:35, cont.:) SO HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. What is written next (in vs. 36)? BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. The Holy One said to Judah: You have no children; therefore you do not know what the pain of children is. Now you have deceived your father and told him: Your son is dead. By your life, when you take a wife you shall bury your sons in order that you may know the pain of children. What is written next (in Gen. 38:1-10): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT < JUDAH >…. (The verses continue with the story of Judah's marriage to Shua, the birth of three sons, and the death of two of them.) It is also written (in Gen. 46:12): < AND THE SONS OF JUDAH: ER, ONAN, SHELAH, PEREZ, AND ZERAH >; BUT ER AND ONAN HAD DIED < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. Now all those years that Joseph had been away from his father, Jacob's mind had been against Judah. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9, specifically states in the parallel account, “It was in Jacob’s heart that Judah had killed him.” See also above.) From where do you learn that? From Benjamin, about whom Judah said to Joseph (in Gen. 44:32): FOR YOUR SERVANT HAS BECOME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Then, as soon as he had set his mind on Benjamin and Joseph had made himself known, Judah was found to be innocent, as stated (in Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART, < AND THOSE WHO HARASS JUDAH SHALL BE CUT OFF >…. Therefore (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM UNTO JOSEPH.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 44:18): When Judah saw that Joseph was not appeased, he began saying to his brothers: [Why] are we standing around? We will begin with this one and wind up with Pharaoh! Now they did not know that Joseph understood their language, as stated (in Gen. 42:23): NOW THEY DID NOT KNOW THAT JOSEPH UNDERSTOOD. When Joseph saw that, he began to talk to them with supplications and with gentle language. He said to them: About this Benjamin, I want only to know who < it was that > advised him to steal the goblet. Did you perhaps advise him to steal the goblet? When Benjamin heard that, he said: They did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. He said to them: Swear to me. He began to swear to him. By what did he swear to him? By the separation of my brother Joseph from me, (This clause may also be translated as follows: “By the scriptural section on the separation of my brother Joseph from me (in Gen. 37:18-36).”) I did not touch it. Now < I swear > neither by the launching of arrows which were sent against him, as stated (in Gen. 49:23): ARCHERS HAVE HATED HIM (Joseph); nor by the stripping with which they stripped him, as stated (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH OF HIS TUNIC; nor by the throwing with which they threw him into the cistern, as stated (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; nor by the selling with which they sold him to the Ishmaelites (in vs. 28); nor by the dipping with which they dipped his tunic in the blood (in vs. 31). < By none of these do I swear > that they did not give me advice, and I did not touch the goblet. Joseph said: Who will make known to me that you are swearing truthfully about your brothers? He said to him: You can know how much I love him from the names of my sons, since I set names for them on the basis of what I feared for < each one >. (Sot. 36b (bar); Gen. R. 93:7; Tanh., Gen. 11:40.) He said to him: And what were the names of your sons? He said to him (in agreement with Gen. 46:21): BELA, BECHER, ASHBEL, GERA, NAAMAN, EHI, ROSH, MUPPIM, HUPPIM, AND ARD. He said to him: Why Bela (BL')? He said to him: Because my brother was swallowed up (rt.: BL') from me. Becher (BKR)? Because he was my mother's first-born (rt.: BKR). Ashbel ('ShBL)? Because my brother was captured (NShBH). Gera? Because my brother was a sojourner (ger) with < merely > the privileges of a transient. (Gk.: xenia, i.e., “rights of a foreigner” or “guest privileges.”) Naaman (N'M)? Because his words were pleasing (N'M). Ehi ('HY)? Because he was my brother ('HY) from < the same > mother, and I had none but him. Rosh (which means "head")? Because he was older than I. Muppim (MPYM)? Because he learned Torah from our father's mouth (MPY) and taught it to me. When all his brothers would return to shepherding, he would sit with my father and learn the traditions which he had received from Shem and Eber. Huppim (rt.: HPP)? Because he has been covered over (rt.: HPP) until this day. Another interpretation of Huppim: Because I did not see his wedding canopy (huppah) nor did he see my wedding canopy. Another interpretation of Huppim (rt.: HPP): Because until now I have been mourning over him and going barefoot (rt.: YHP). And Ard ('RD)? Because he brought (rt.: YRD) all of us down here. Another interpretation of ARD (from Gen. 37:35): NO, I WILL GO DOWN ('RD) MOURNING TO MY SON IN SHEOL. Will you please not bring down ('RD) Daddy to Sheol through grief! And so Judah said (in Gen. 44:34): FOR HOW SHALL I GO UP UNTO MY FATHER < IF THE LAD IS NOT WITH ME >? When Joseph heard that, he was not able to suppress his compassion, as stated (in Gen. 45:1-3): JOSEPH COULD NOT RESTRAIN HIMSELF…. AND HE WEPT ALOUD…. THEN JOSEPH SAID UNTO HIS BROTHERS: I AM JOSEPH. When he said to them: I AM {YOUR BROTHER JOSEPH} … (in vs. 3, cont.): HIS BROTHERS COULD NOT ANSWER HIM BECAUSE THEY WERE DISMAYED BECAUSE OF HIM. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon said in the name of R. Eleazar ben Azariah: (Gen. R. 93:11.) Now, if in the case of Joseph, when he said to his brothers: I am Joseph, they knew what they had done with him and were unable to answer him; how much the less will a creature be able to stand when the Holy One comes to dispute with each and every one of < his > creatures and to tell him his deeds, just as it is written (in Amos 4:13): FOR BEHOLD, THE ONE WHO FORMS THE MOUNTAINS, < CREATES THE WIND, AND TELLS ONE WHAT HIS THOUGHT IS > … !

Go, get thee down (Exod. 32:7). The sages said: Moses was actually excommunicated by the heavenly court at that time. Here it is said: Get thee down (red) as a rebuke, for the people had dealt corruptly, and elsewhere it is said: And Judah went down (vayered) from his brethren (Gen. 38:1). What is written preceding that? And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid. 37:35). But when he remained uncomforted they arose and excommunicated Judah. They said: “When you told us: ‘Come and let us sell him,’ we listened to you, but if you had told us: ‘Come, let us take him back,’ we would have listened to you. You are responsible for our father’s grief.” That is why they excommunicated him. Hence the word red (“get thee down”) implies excommunication.

Observe that though the law permits a mourner to return to his work and be comforted after three days, our patriarch Jacob refused to be comforted over the loss of Joseph, as is written: And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted (Gen. 37:35). Why was that? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, concealed the fact of Joseph’s survival in order to fulfill the decree Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger (Gen. 15:13). If that had not been so, would not Isaac his father, a prophet, who was still alive and aware that Joseph still lived have disclosed it to him? He had said to himself: If the Holy One, blessed be He, concealed it from him, shall I tell him? When the prophetic spirit bubbled up in Jacob, the tribes were wandering about the marketplace, neither understanding nor hearing what was transpiring there, while Jacob our patriarch, sitting at home, knew what was happening in Egypt, as it is said: And now Jacob saw that there was grain in Egypt.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

Precious in the eyes of God are ten things called precious: wealth, as it is said, "A man's wealth is his strong city" (Proverbs 10:15); the Torah, as it is said, "For she is more precious than rubies" (Proverbs 3:15); Israel, as it is said, "Ephraim is a precious son to Me" (Jeremiah 31:20); knowledge, as it is said, "Precious treasure and oil are in a wise man's dwelling" (Proverbs 21:20); prophecy, as it is said, "And the word of the Lord was precious in those days" (1 Samuel 3:1); understanding, as it is said, "The spirit of a man is the lamp of the Lord, searching all his innermost parts" (Proverbs 20:27); foolishness, as it is said, "Folly is set in great dignity, while the rich sit in a lowly place" (Ecclesiastes 10:6); the righteous, as it is said, "How precious are Your thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!" (Psalm 139:17); kindness, as it is said, "How precious is Your lovingkindness, O God!" (Psalm 36:8); and the death of the righteous, as it is said, "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints" (Psalm 116:15). It is like a parable of a king who sent one of his officials to collect his taxes. The official stayed with a homeowner for eleven days, and each day he entrusted the homeowner with a hundred coins, totaling ten thousand coins. When the official came to collect the taxes, the homeowner claimed that he only owed fifty coins. The official wondered how he could collect the remaining amount from the homeowner. Similarly, God found it difficult to ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, whom He had blessed with Heaven and Earth, and who sanctified God's name in the world. God also found it difficult to ask Isaac to be sacrificed, who willingly offered himself on the altar and sanctified God's name in the world. God found it difficult to ask Jacob to die, who toiled in Torah his whole life. God found it difficult to ask Moses to die, who risked his life to face Pharaoh and fulfill God's commandments. Similarly, God found it difficult to ask David to die, who completed his soul and descended to his eternal rest. The same goes for Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who cast themselves into the fiery furnace, and for all righteous people. If not for the fact that the righteous ask for death with their mouths, they would not die. As for Abraham it is written (Genesis 15:2) "And I am going alone, childless." In Isaac it is written (Genesis 27:7) "And I will bless you before I die." In Jacob it is written (Genesis 37:35) "I will go down to the grave in mourning." In Moses it is written (Deuteronomy 4:22) "But I must die." In David it is written (1 Kings 2:2) "I am about to go the way of all the earth." In Jonah it is written (Jonah 4:3) "Please, take my life." And since the righteous ask with their mouths, God said: "Let these go because of those." If Abraham had lived, how would he have led Isaac's reign? And similarly, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, and Solomon. Rather, God said: "Let these go because of those."

And Naphtali came unto his father, and he gave unto him the coat, and spoke unto him ‎according to the instruction of his brothers. And when Jacob saw the coat he recognized it, and ‎he fell to the ground silent like a rock. And afterwards he rose up and cried out, in a weeping ‎voice: That is the coat of my son Joseph! And Jacob sent hastily one of his servants to his sons, ‎and he met them coming along the road with the sheep. And the sons of Jacob came unto ‎their father towards evening, with their garments torn and dust upon their heads, and they ‎met their father weeping and lamenting with a loud voice. And Jacob said unto his sons: Will ‎you not tell me all about the misfortune that hath befallen me so suddenly to-day? And they ‎answered unto Jacob their father saying: After having gathered in the sheep, we went on our ‎road towards the city of Shechem in the wilderness, and we found this coat full of blood and ‎dust, and we recognized the coat, and we forwarded it unto thee that thou mightst recognize ‎it likewise. And when Jacob heard the words of his sons, he cried out with a powerful voice, ‎and he said: It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent ‎in pieces. For I have sent him to-day unto you to inquire after your peace and the welfare of ‎the sheep, and to bring me back word from you. And he went according to my orders, and this ‎evil hath come over him, while I thought my son is with you. And the sons of Jacob answered, ‎saying: He hath never reached us, and we have not seen him from the day we have left thee ‎even until now. And Jacob rent his clothes and put sackcloth upon his loins, and he wept ‎bitterly and he mourned for his son, lamenting in these words: Oh Joseph, Joseph my son, ‎behold I have sent thee to in quire for the peace of thy brothers and thou hast been torn into ‎pieces, and through me this hath befallen thee. It grieveth me for thy sake, my son Joseph, oh ‎it grieveth me! How sweet hast thou been unto me while living, and how bitter is thy death ‎unto me! Would that I had died in thy stead to-day, oh my son, for it grieveth me exceedingly ‎for thee, oh my son. Oh my son, my son, Joseph, my son, where art thou and where is thy ‎soul? Awake oh awake from thy place and come and see my affliction concerning thee, oh my ‎son! Come and count the tears of my eyes flowing down my cheeks, and bring them before ‎the Lord that his anger may turn away from me. Oh my son how hast thou fallen, in a manner ‎as no man hath ever perished from the beginning of the world, even unto this day. For thou ‎hast fallen by the hand of a cruel enemy, but I know that this hath happened unto thee on ‎account of my many sins. Arise, oh my son, awake and see the bitterness of my agony ‎concerning thee! But verily I have not caused thee to grow and I have not formed thee, and I ‎have not given unto thee a spirit and a soul, for it was God who hath created thee, and he hath ‎built up thy bones, and invested them with flesh and breathed into thy nostrils a breath of life, ‎and he gave thee unto me. And the same God that hath given thee unto me hath taken thee ‎away from me now, and this hath befallen thee to-day, and all the works of God are good.‎

And Jacob kept on lamenting in this manner and he wept bitterly, and he fell to the ground ‎and was silent. And all the sons of Jacob saw their father's agony, and they repented of what ‎they had done, and they also wept bitterly. And Judah arose and lifted up the head of his ‎father, and he placed it upon his knees, and he removed his father's tears from his cheeks. ‎And Judah wept a fearful weeping, with his father's head upon his lap silent like a rock. And all ‎the sons of Jacob and all his servants and all his daughters rose up and surrounded him to ‎comfort him; but he refused to be comforted. And the news reached Isaac, the son of ‎Abraham, Jacob's father, and he and his household wept bitterly for Joseph. And Isaac left his ‎home in Hebron and his men with him, and they came to comfort Jacob; but he refused to be ‎comforted. And afterwards Jacob rose up from the ground with the tears streaming down his ‎face, and he said unto his sons: Arise and take your swords and your bows and go into the field ‎to search for the body of my son, and bring it unto me and I will bury it. And, I pray ye, to ‎search likewise among the beasts and hunt them down, and the one you meet first seize it ‎and bring it unto me, peradventure the Lord will see my misery this day and grant you to find ‎the one that hath torn my son, and bring it unto me that I may avenge on it the death of my ‎son. And the sons of Jacob did according to the command of their father, and they rose early in ‎the morning and they took each his sword and his bow, and they went unto the field to hunt ‎the beasts. And when they came unto the wilderness, and behold a wolf came towards them, ‎and they seized him and they brought him unto their father saying: This is the first beast we ‎met, and we have brought him unto thee according to thy commandment, but the body of thy ‎son we could not find. And Jacob took the beast from the hands of his sons, and he cried out ‎once more with a terrible voice, and he seized the beast with one hand and he spoke unto the ‎beast in the bitterness of his heart, saying: Why hast thou devoured my son Joseph, and how ‎didst thou not fear the Lord of the earth to bring over me such grief concerning my son ‎Joseph'? And thou hast devoured my son without any cause, for he hath not wronged thee, ‎and thou hast brought guiltiness over me on his account, and now therefore the Lord will ‎always find him that deserveth punishment.‎

And the Lord opened the mouth of the beast in order to comfort Jacob with its words, and it ‎answered unto Jacob and it spake these words: As God liveth who hath created me in the ‎earth, and as thy soul liveth, oh my master, I have not seen thy son nor have I torn him to ‎pieces. . But I am coming from a distant land likewise seeking my son, and as it hath happened ‎unto thee and thy son, even so it hath happened unto me and my son. And it is now ten days ‎since I have come unto this land in search of my son, who hath left me and I know not where ‎he is, and whether he be dead or alive. And when I came to-day unto the field to seek my son, ‎thy sons found me and they seized me, adding grief to my grief, and they brought me to thee ‎this day; and I have spoken unto thee all concerning my affairs. And now, oh son of man, ‎behold I am in thy hands and thou canst do unto me as it seem eth best in thine eyes, this day, ‎but as the Lord liveth who hath created me in the earth, I have not seen thy son, neither have ‎I torn him to pieces, nor has ever human flesh entered my mouth all the days of my life. And ‎when Jacob heard the words of the beast he was greatly astonished, and he released the ‎animal and it went away. And Jacob continued weeping and lamenting for Joseph, and he ‎mourned over his son many days. And the Ishmaelites who bought Joseph from the ‎Midianites who had bought him from his brothers went with Joseph unto Egypt. And when ‎they reached the boundaries of Egypt they met with four men of the sons of Elam, the son of ‎Abraham, who came on their way from Egypt. And the Ishmaelites said unto them: Would you ‎not like to buy this slave from us? And they said: Give him unto us. And they delivered Joseph ‎unto them and they examined him and they saw that he was a lad of very fine appearance and ‎they bought him for nine shekels. And the Ishmaelites went on their journey into Egypt, and ‎the Midianites returned like wise to Egypt on the same day. And they said to each other: ‎Behold we have heard that Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, captain of the guards, is seeking a ‎good servant to stand before him and to minister unto him and to take charge of his house and ‎all belonging unto him. And now let us go and sell him unto him as this is precisely the servant ‎he wants, and he will pay us for him whatsoever we desire. And those Midianites came unto ‎the house of Potiphar, saying unto him: We have heard that thou desirest to procure a good ‎servant to attend thee. Behold we have with us a servant according to thy desire, and if thou ‎canst give unto us what we ask for him, we will sell him unto thee. And Potiphar said unto ‎them : Bring him into my presence, and if he pleaseth me then I will pay for him whatsoever ‎you ask for him. And the Midianites brought Joseph before Potiphar, and Potiphar saw him ‎and he pleased him exceedingly,‎

And while they were eating they held counsel together concerning what was to be done with ‎him, whether to kill him or to bring him back unto his father. And whilst they were holding ‎their council they lifted up their eyes and behold, a company of Ishmaelites was coming from ‎the distance on their road from Gilead, and going down to Egypt. And Judah said unto them: ‎What profit is it to us if we slay our brother, perhaps the Lord may once require him from us, ‎this is the advice I propose concerning him, according to which you may do unto him: Behold ‎this company of Ishmaelites is going down to Egypt, come then and let us sell him unto them ‎and let our hands be free from him. And they will take him along on their way and he will be ‎lost amongst the people of the land, and we need not slay him with our hands. And this ‎pleased them well and they decided to act according to Judah’s advice. And while they were ‎dis cussing this matter, behold, before the Ishmaelites had yet reached them, seven ‎merchants of Midian passed them by, and passing by they were thirsty and lifting up their ‎eyes, they saw the pit wherein Joseph was, and behold all kinds of birds were around him. ‎And these Midianites ran unto the pit to drink water, for they thought there was water in the ‎pit, and when they arrived before the pit they heard the voice of Joseph weeping and ‎lamenting in the pit and looking into the pit they saw a lad of fine figure and comely ‎appearance. And they called unto him: Who art thou, and who hath brought thee hither and ‎who hath cast thee into this pit in the wilderness? And they all assisted Joseph to raise him, ‎and they brought Joseph out from the pit and took him along continuing their journey. And ‎when they passed by his brothers, they saw Joseph in the hands of the Midianites and they ‎said unto them: Why are ye doing this thing to take our servant and go away with him? Verily, ‎we have placed this lad into the pit, for he hath rebelled against us, and you came and brought ‎him up to take him away. And now return ye our servant unto us.

We can now better understand Jacob mourning for his son Joseph, and his refusal to be comforted (37, 35). Tractate Sofrim 21 teaches that one does not accept תנחומים, condolences, for the living. It is a Heavenly decree that twelve months after his death, a person is apt to recede in one's memory to the point where one forgets him. In view of this people ask how could Jacob fail to have remained aware that Joseph was alive, since he, Jacob could not be reconciled to his loss? [In a gloss the author mentions something he has heard about this problem in the name of the famous פוסק Rabbi Moses Isserlis. He explained the matter על פי הפשט, according to the plain meaning of the text. During the first year of Joseph's absence, Jacob mourned him in the manner one mourns a deceased person for he was convinced that Joseph was dead. When the year had passed and he found himself unable to be consoled, he realized in retrospect that the news of Joseph's disappearance had never meant that Joseph was dead. Since Joseph had failed to return after all this time, Jacob had to assume that he had died in the interval. He kept thinking along that line for many years. The whole matter of "forgetting" the deceased has to do with the tradition that the soul of the deceased "commutes" between Heaven and earth during the first twelve months after the body's death. After that, seeing that the soul has severed contact with earth, the deceased recedes into the remoter regions of the memory of his next-of-kin. To sum up: Jacob had accepted comfort regarding the terrestrial dimension of Joseph's death. He had not, however, accepted condolences regarding the demise of the spiritual dimension of Joseph.]

The message of the Midrash is clear. While our activities may appear as hurling the world towards destruction, G–d may utilise these very activities to further His plans. Even Jacob, who mourned Joseph and was inconsolable, and who prophesied that he would descend to the grave still mourning for his son (37, 35), did not realise that Joseph's fate was the catalyst that triggered positive historic developments. The same was true for Reuben who mourned Joseph's disappearance from the pit and his share of the responsibility. Jeremiah teaches us in the above quoted passage that we cannot evaluate the true significance of step by step historical developments until the whole cycle has been completed.

אל המקלות, “in response to the sticks;” the word אל does not mean to approach physically;” similar to Genesis 41,57: לשבור אל יוסף, “to buy grain from Joseph,” where it also has not been used in a physical sense. Another interpretation: “on account of the sticks.” This would be similar to Yaakov saying in Genesis 37,35: כי ארד אל בני שאולה, “for I will join my son on the way down to hades” (a grave in the nether regions of the earth).

וישאו אותו בניו, “His sons carried him, etc;” only his sons, not any of his grandsons as they had Canaanite mothers. We have read in the Talmud tractate Pessachim folio 50, “are we to assume that Yehudah’s wife (Genesis 38,2) was really a Canaanite, in spite of the fact that Avraham had gone to great length to insure that Eliezer would not select a Canaanite wife for his son Yitzchok? (Genesis 24,3 Yitzchok) Yitzchok had similarly instructed his son Yaakov. The answer given by the Talmud is that the word Canaanite also means: “trader,” and that the Torah told us in Genesis 38,2 that Yehudah’s wife was the daughter of a well known trader, named Shua. If you were to counter how this can be squared with the opinion expressed on Genesis 37,35 where we read about Yaakov’s “sons and daughters all trying to comfort Yaakov over the disappearance and presumed death of Joseph,” that all of Yaakov’s sons had twin girls born with them, so why did Yehudah not marry one of them or a granddaughter of Yaakov? We must assume that all of these twin daughters died prematurely so that the sons of Yaakov had no other option but to marry Canaanite girls. To the additional question why they could not at least have married the children of Shimon of whom we know that he had a son by a Canaanite woman (Genesis 46,10)? B‘reshit Rabbah 80,10 suggests that Shaul borne to Shimon was actually a son of Sh’chem who had raped Dinah; one opinion offered is that Shimon buried that offspring in the land of Canaan before the brothers descended to Egypt and that this is why he is referred to as son of a Canaanite. Getting back to the question why the grandsons of Yaakov were not part of the pall bearers, of the grandfather; Joseph did not wish to do anything that could arouse jealousies among them, some being biologically qualified others not; seeing that no one would be jealous of Ephrayim and Menashe who were princes, he did not object to their being pall bearers. (They would also be founding fathers of tribes in the future) Moreover, Rashi says that Levi was not among the pall bearers, as he would be carrying the Holy Ark. More questions are raised as to how Moses could carry the coffin of Joseph at the Exodus, seeing that he too was a Levite. A suggestion is offered that Joseph’s coffin, similar to the Holy Ark, did not actually need pall bearers as it carried itself, similar to the Holy Ark which is described as carrying its bearers. (based on a verse in Psalms 80,2: כצאן יוסף יושב הכרובים, (Compare more about this in Moshav z’keynim)

כי נכמרו רחמיו, “for his compassion had been stirred.” This is a common feeling between people who share the same father and mother. [Seeing Binyamin was the only one of the brothers who was a full brother to Joseph, his feelings were more tender towards him. Ed.] According to Bereshit Rabbah 94,5 the words כי נכמרו רחמיו אל אחיו allude to the following conversation between Joseph and Binyamin. Joseph asked: “do you have a full brother, one that has both the same father and mother as you?” Binyamin answered that he used to have such a brother but that he did not know what had become of him. When Joseph probed further, asking him if he had any children, Binyamin replied that indeed he had ten sons. To Joseph’s inquiry after the names of his sons, Binyamin told him the names. Joseph wanted to know the meaning of these names. Binyamin explained that they all represented his grief over his missing brother. The name Bela, for instance, represented the fact that apparently his missing brother had been “swallowed” up amongst the other nations so that his identity no longer could be determined. (The Midrash continues to elaborate on similar meanings of all of Binyamin’s sons.) Having heard all this, Joseph was so close to weeping that he had to leave the room in order not to give himself away.

ONE LITTLE GOAT That we end one of Judaism’s most sacred rituals with a children’s song tells us much about what sustained Judaism as a faith for longer, under more arduous circumstances, than any other heritage in the West. The Jewish love of children means that Jews look forward to the future even more than we look back to the past. Just as we began the seder with the questions of a child, so we conclude it with a nursery rhyme, reminding ourselves that what sustains a faith is not strength or power, but its ability to inspire successive generations of children to add their voices to their people’s song. The song itself, disarming in its simplicity, teaches the great truth of Jewish hope: that though many nations (symbolized by the cat, the dog, and so on) attacked Israel (the “goat”), each in turn has vanished into oblivion. At the end of days God will vanquish the angel of death and inaugurate a world of life and peace, the two great Jewish loves. Perhaps, too, there is deeper symbolism. The kid eaten by the cat reminds us of the story of Joseph, sold into slavery. His brothers then slaughtered a kid, dipped Joseph’s coat in its blood, and showed it to their father to persuade him that Joseph had been killed by a wild animal. Outwardly, Jacob accepted their story. However, the Torah says that “he refused to be comforted” (Gen. 37:35). Jewish law states that there is a limit to the period of mourning. Why, then, did Jacob say he would never be comforted? A profound rabbinic commentary explains that there is a time limit to mourning only when one is sure someone has died. Jacob, however, never gave up believing there was a chance, however slim, that Joseph was still alive. His refusal to be comforted was a refusal to give up hope, and in the end it was justified. Joseph was still alive, and he and his father were eventually reunited. Ḥad Gadya expresses the Jewish refusal to give up hope. Though history is full of man’s inhumanity to man – dog bites cat, stick hits dog – that is not the final verse. The Haggada ends with the death of death in eternal life, a fitting end for the story of a people dedicated to Moses’ great command, “Choose life” (Deut. 30:19).

(From this point to the end of the tractate is an aggadic addendum.) The greatest man among the Anakim (Josh. 14, 15.) —among the Anakim refers to our father Abraham whose height was equal to that of seventy-four men; his eating and drinking were of a similar proportion, equal to those of seventy-four men; so too his strength. What did he do? (This is probably a reference to Gen. 25, 6, But unto the sons of the concubines … Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away … eastward, unto the east country.) He removed the sixteen (So GRA in accordance with Gen. 25, 2-4. V, M and H incorrectly ‘seventeen’.) sons of Keturah, built for them a walled city of iron and settled them in it. The sun never penetrated into it because it was exceedingly high, so Abraham handed to them disks of precious stones and pearls of which use will be made (So GRA. V, M and H read, ‘and they will be used’.) in the hereafter when the Holy One, blessed be He, will cause the sun and moon to be confounded, as it is written, When the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, (Is. 24, 23.) because use will be made of these [disks as luminaries]. Og (King of Bashan; Deut. 3, 11.) is identical with Eliezer, (Abraham’s servant; cf. Gen. 15, 2, XXIV, 2ff.) and [he was so huge that] he could hide Abraham’s feet in the palm of his hand. Once he was rebuked [by Abraham] and from fright his tooth fell out. Abraham picked it up and made ivory beds of it in which he slept. Others say that he made of it a chair which he used (lit. ‘and sat in it’.) all his life. Who gave him to Abraham? Nimrod. (Mentioned in Gen. 10, 8ff.) Og went and built sixty cities, the smallest of which was sixty miles high, as it is stated, Threescore cities, all the region of Argob. (Deut. 3, 4.) And what did he eat? A thousand oxen and the same [number of] other animals, and his drink consisted of a thousand measures. A (So GRA. V, M and H read ‘and what was the’.) drop of his semen weighed thirty-six pounds. (V and H add ‘and so for all generations’, which makes no sense.) It was taught: What did our father Jacob do when his sons brought him the coat [stained] with blood? (Cf. Gen. 37, 31ff.) He did not believe them at all. Whence do we infer this? For it is written, But he refused to be comforted, (ibid. 35.) because no consolations are acceptable for a living person. One, however, who is dead passes naturally from the mind, (lit. ‘he is forgotten from the heart of his own accord’.) as it is stated, I am forgotten as a dead man out of mind. (Ps. 31, 13.) What then did he do? He proceeded to make a test with sheaves, (GRA transposes the order of V, M and H by putting the test of the sheaves before that of the stones, and omits ‘according to the first opinion’.) writing upon them the respective names of the tribes, their constellations and the months, and said to them, ‘I order you to prostrate yourselves before Levi because he wears the Urim and Thummim’, (Cf. Ex. 28, 30.) but they did not stand up. ‘Before Judah who is king’, but they did not stand up; but when he mentioned Joseph to them, they all stood up and bowed before Joseph. But it was not yet quite clear that he was alive. So Jacob went to the mountains, hewed twelve stones, arranged them in a row, and wrote on each the name of its tribe, the name of its constellation and the name of its month. On one stone he wrote ‘Reuben, lamb, Nisan’ (The name of the tribe, constellation and month.) and similarly on every stone. He began from Simeon and said to them, ‘I order you to stand up for Reuben’, but they did not stand up. ‘For Simeon’, but they did not stand up. ‘For every tribe’, but the stones did not stand up. As soon, however, as he mentioned the name of Joseph to them, they stood up at once and bowed before Joseph’s stone. (The translation follows the text of GRA.) For this reason, all the tribes were written on Joseph’s stone. Similarly, all Israel are called by Joseph’s name, as it is stated, Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock. (Ps. 80, 2 where Joseph is a synonym of all Israel.) So also all the heads of the families of the priests and Levites, [e.g.] Eliashib, (Neh. 3, 1.) because of the phrase lahashibo ’el ’abiw; (In the story of Joseph (Gen. 37, 22), E.V. to restore him to his father. The name Eliashib is broken up in three parts corresponding in sound and meaning to these three Heb. words. From ‘For this reason’ to ’abiw is the reading of GRA. V and H have instead: ‘but from the mishmaroth, Eliashib the priest’.) Elḳanah, (Connected with ḳanah, ‘he bought’.) because Potiphar had bought him [as it is stated,] And Joseph ms brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar … bought him. (Gen. 39, 1. V inserts in parentheses, And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Ẓaphenath, paneah, etc. (ibid. XLI, 45), which has no relevance to the subject.) When Rebekah left her father’s house (Cf. ibid. XXIV, 59ff.) she was three years old, (V, M and H add ‘and three days’.) because it is customary among kings, when a daughter is born to them, to hear of it after three days; (H reads ‘after three years and three days’.) but as her father did not hear [of her birth] he did not defile her up to that time; and now a miracle happened to her in that her father died so that he should not defile her, as it is written, Neither had any man known her, (Gen. 24, 16.) and by man only her father could be meant, (From ‘he did not’ to ‘meant’ is GRA’s reading. V, M and H read: ‘therefore a miracle happened to her that she should not be defiled’.) for such was the practice of the Arameans to lie with their virgin daughters after they were three years of age, (‘After … age’ is inserted by GRA; omitted in V, M and H.) and then to give them away in marriage. (V, M and H add: ‘on account of that which is written, Neither had any man known her, and by man only her father could be meant’.) Dinah was six years old when she bore Asenath from [her association with] Shechem, (Cf. Gen. 34.) corresponding to (lit. ‘the number of’.) the six years which Jacob served Laban in payment for the flock, (ibid. XXXI, 41.) thus completing (lit. ‘until’.) the twenty years of his service. [The Archangel] Michael then descended and took her away to the house of Potiphar. From here onward let the man of understanding increase knowledge. (From ‘completing the twenty years’ to ‘knowledge’ is GRA’s text. V and M have instead: ‘and he added twenty years, because he died. From this point onwards let the man of understanding increase knowledge. And Michael descended and led her to Potiphar’s house’.)

Yaakov tore his clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourned his son for a long time. His sons and daughters tried to comfort him, but he refused to be comforted. He said, “I will go down to the grave mourning for my son” (Bereshit 37:34–35).

All his sons and all his daughters rose to console him, but he refused to be consoled [accept consolation]. He said, I will go down to the grave [while I am still] mourning for my son. His father wept for him.

And all his sons and all the men of his house arose and went to console him; but he refused to receive consolation, and said, For I will go down to my son mourning to the house of the grave. And Izhak his father also wept for him.

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים, “the Midianites had sold him into Egypt;” the Torah chooses this wording [instead of mentioning at this point to whom specifically he had been sold, Ed.] as foreshadowing the brothers’ and their descendants having to remain in Egypt for many years in the future. The enslavement and forceful detention of the Israelites inside Egypt commencing after the last of the brothers had died, was an example of G-d meting out punishment fitting the crime that had been committed, in this instance to the children of those who had committed the crime. [Although Joseph had not committed the same crime, he had been the cause of all] the crimes that were committed. This still leaves open the question of how Binjamin’s descendants had to be punished. Ed.] All of the brothers, however learned from the corrupt ways of the Egyptians so that they had to suffer before being found worthy of redemption.

אל מצרים, “in Egypt;” another example of the word אל being used as meaning: “in,” is Exodus 25,21, ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and you are to place the testimony (Tablets) inside the ark,” as well as Numbers 19,17 as well as Numbers 19,6:.אל תוך

שר הטבחים, “chief of the king’s slaughterers.” He was in fact the chief of the executioners, the death penalty in Egypt being quite common. We find the expression “slaughter” applied to executioners in Psalms 37,14.

THE CAPTAIN OF THE GUARD. The term tabbach (guard) is used both with reference to killing (Cf. Dan. 2:14, The captain of the king’s guard (rav tabbachyya) who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.) and with reference to cooking. (Cf. I Sam. 9:24 where the term tabbach means cook, viz., And the cook (ha-tabbach) took up the thigh.) Onkelos’ rendition is correct. (Onkelos renders sar ha-tabbachim as the chief executioner.)

Heb. “Medanites.”

והמדנים, we already explained who they were and what they did on verse 28.

שר הטבחים, as per Onkelos, Pharaoh’s chief executioner.

OFFICER OF ‘HATABACHIM.’ This means the slaughterers of the king’s animals. This is the language of Rashi. Similarly, it says, And the ‘tabach’ (cook) took up the thigh; (I Samuel 9:24.) For perfumers and for cooks ‘tabachoth’. (Ibid., 8:13.) Closer to the meaning of the word hatabachim is the opinion of Onkelos who says that since the prison house was under his charge, [he was called the officer of the tabachim, since] we find the word t’vichah in connection with the killing of people. Prepare ye the slaughter (‘matbiach’) for his children; (Isaiah 14:21.) Thou hast slaughtered (‘tavachta’) unsparingly. (Lamentations 2:21.) The verse in the book of Daniel is proof of the validity of Onkelos’ interpretation: To Arioch the captain of ‘tabachaya’ of the king, who was gone forth to slay the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:14. The word tabachaya or tabachim is thus clearly associated with the slaying of people. See my Hebrew commentary, Note 77, pp. 211-212.)

והמדנים מכרו אותו אל מצרים. The Midianites, Medanites, and the Ishmaelites are brotherly tribes. (compare 25,20) According to the plain meaning of the text, they are the same people, sometimes called by one name, other times by the other name. This is why the Torah wrote here that the Midianites had sold him, whereas the Ishmaelites had transported him there.

הטבחים— means the slaughterers of the kings animals.

סריס bezeichnet einerseits unzweifelhaft eine Verstümmelung des Körpers, die der Fähigkeit beraubt, Nachkommen zu erhalten, andererseits ebenso unzweifelhaft bloß Diener. Eben dieser Potiphar war ja verheiratet und war ja, wahrscheinlich, אסנת seine Tochter. סרם verwandt mit זרו .שרש ,זרז: behend, rüstig in Bewegung sein, etwas rasch fördern. זרזיר מתנים: ein Tier, das rasch, gelenk in den Lenden ist, rasch läuft. Ähnlich wie זרזיר von זרז ebenso סרסור rabbinisch von סרס: ein Agent, der etwas für den andern betreibt und fördert. שרש ist auch im Grunde nichts anderes; denn die Wurzel ist der "Agent" der Bäume. Von שרש ist auch שרשרות, Kette, das ist: Vermittlerin zwischen zwei verschiedenen Teilen desselben Objekts. Demgemäß heißt סרים im allgemeinen: Agent, speziell: Hofagent, Hofdiener, irgend ein Angestellter in nächster Umgebung des Fürsten, der für die prompte Herbeischaffung der fürstlichen Bedürfnisse zu sorgen hat. Die andere Bedeutung: entmannt, ergibt sich analog, wie שרש auch das Entgegengesetzte: entwurzeln bedeutet, עֵקֶר, Wurzel, und עקר sprosslos, kinderlos, ohne Wurzelkraft für ein künftiges Menschendasein, so auch סריס: einer, der in Fortförderung, Fortsetzung des Menschengeschlechts gehemmt ist. Potiphar war also Pharaos Hofbeamter und zwar שר הטבחים: Oberhofkochmeister der ägyptischen Majestät. Indem wir hier in den bedeutendsten alten Staat eingeführt werden, der für die Bildung der alten Völker so bedeutsam geworden, ist es charakteristisch, sogleich am Eingange einen "Fürsten" der Köche, Bäcker, Schenke zu finden. Sagen dürfen wir uns, daß selbst in den entartetsten Zeiten der jüdischen Geschichte wir solche Chargen nicht finden. Wer dem Fürsten den Becher, den Teller etc. kredenzte, war und blieb ein ganz gewöhnlicher Mensch. Nur in Staaten in welchen, wie im alten Ägypten, den Fürsten ein göttlicher Nimbus umfließt — sehen wir doch noch auf ägyptischen Bildern den König vor dem Göttlichen seiner eigenen Majestas knien — werden auch eines Abglanzes dieses Nimbus teilhaftig, die in nächste Berührung mit der geweihten Person kommen. Ist der König ein Gott, so wird sein "Truchseß" (Trogsetzer] ein Ministrant des Göttlichen, und der Koch: ein "Fürst der Köche". Ist dies eine heitere Seite des Amtes, so hat es zugleich eine entsetzliche Zusammenstellung: der Viehschlächter war zugleich der Menschenschlächter. So der Oberhofmenschenschlächter Nebusaradon (Kön. II. 25, 9).

The slaughterers of the king’s animals. [Rashi knows this] because if Hashem brought balsam and lotus carriers for Yoseif, to spare him the odor of naphta [see Rashi on v. 25], He surely would not bring him to an executioner, who is even more repulsive. Onkelos holds that Potiphar was merely appointed over the executioners, but he himself did not kill. (Gur Aryeh)

The verse turns its focus back to Joseph: The Midyanites, [ medanim ] , 15 sold him, Joseph, to Egypt as a slave to Potifar, who was a courtier [ seris ] of Pharaoh. Although seris literally refers to a eunuch, this is not necessarily its meaning in the verse. Rather, the verse uses it to refer to an officer with a position in the royal palace. 16 Potifar was the chief executioner . 17 It is likely that Joseph was considered quality merchandise. He was of fine form, only seventeen years old, and his health had never been strained by hard work. He would have been sold only to a wealthy individual who could afford Joseph’s worth.

שר הטבחים, “the minister in charge of the butchers.” Rashi claims that Potiphar was in charge of all the King’s livestock. According to Onkelos, Potiphar was the King’s chief executioner. We do indeed find the expression טביחה used in the Bible in connection with the slaughter of human beings, for instance in Lamentations

“The Medanites sold him to Egypt, to Potifar, an official of Pharaoh, the chief executioner” (Genesis 37:36). “The Medanites sold him” – how many bills of sale were written for him? Rabbi Yudan said: Four – his brothers to the Ishmaelites, the Ishmaelites to the merchants, the merchants to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him to Egypt. Rav Huna said: Five – the Midianites sold him to the country’s treasury. Potifar came and purchased him from the country’s treasury.

“It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers and turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” (Genesis 38:1). “It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers” – “Judah has betrayed, and an abomination has been performed…” (Malachi 2:11). [God] said to him: ‘You have denied, Judah; you have lied, Judah’ – “and an abomination has been performed in Israel” (Malachi 2:11). (Judah is portrayed as having denied and lied in that he betrayed his status as a member of Jacob’s household by marrying a Canaanite woman (Matnot Kehuna). This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Bereshit Rabba 84:21). ) ‘Judah has become profane’ – “for Judah has profaned the holy of the Lord that He loves” (Malachi 2:11). “It was at that time.” “I will yet bring to you a dispossessor, inhabitant of Maresha; [the glory of Israel] will come as far as Adulam” (Micah 1:15) – the King and Holy One of Israel. (God will come to Adulam to punish Israel (Yefe To’ar). ) [Alternatively,] should the glory of Israel have “come as far as Adulam”? (In this clause the midrash interprets “the glory of Israel” to refer to Judah himself. This sentence is to be read rhetorically; was it really fitting for Judah to come to Adulam and to marry a Canaanite woman? (see Yefe To’ar). ) “Come as far as Adulam” – as it is written: “And turned to an Adulamite man.” “It was at that time” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman began: “For I have known the thoughts” (Jeremiah 29:11) – the tribes were engaged in the sale of Joseph, Joseph was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Reuben was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Jacob was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Judah was engaged in taking a wife for himself, and the Holy One blessed be He was engaged in creating the light of the messianic king: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers.” (Judah married the daughter of Shua, thereby establishing the family that would produce the Messiah. ) “Before she begins labor, she will give birth” (Isaiah 66:7) – before the first one who would enslave [Israel] was born, the ultimate redeemer was born. “It was at that time” – what is written prior to the matter? “The Medanites sold him to Egypt” (Genesis 37:36). (As the events that would lead to Israel’s enslavement in Egypt were just beginning to unfold, God was already planting the seeds of the ultimate redemption. )

"But ye, ye are not so, whereas (Deut. 20, 4) For the Lord your God, It is who goeth with you, etc. This refers to the camp containing the Holy Ark." And why so much? Because the Holy Scroll with all its accompanied things was placed in the ark. (Fol. 43) Similar to this says the passage (Num. 31, 6) And Moses sent them a thousand of each tribe to the army. This refers to the Sanhedrian; and Phinehas, this refers to the anointed priest as the chaplain of the army! with the Holy vessels, this refers to the ark and the tables; and the trumpets for blowing the alarm, these are the hornets. We are taught in a Baraitha: Phinehas did not go in rain into that war, but to pay off the judgment of his mother's father, concerning whom it is said (Gen. 37, 36) And the Medionites sold him into Egypt. Do you mean to say that Phinehas is a descendant of Joseph? Behold, there is a passage (Ex. 6, 26) And Elazar, the son of Aaron took himself one of the daughters of Putiel, for a wife. Does not the word Putiel refer to a descend of Jethro, who fattened calves for sacrificing unto idols. [Hence he was a descendant of Jethro and not of Joseph?] Nay the word Putiel refers to Joseph who [is surnamed Putiel because he] conquered his evil inclination. But were not tribes disgracing Phinehas saying to him: "Look at the son of Putti whose mother's father fattened calves to the sacrifice of the idols, should he execute a prince of the tribe of Israel," [hence he is a descendant of Jethro? We must therefore say that if his mother's father was a descendant of Joseph then his mother's mother was of the lineage of Jethro, and if his mother's mother was a descendant of Joseph then his mother's father was of the lineage of Jethro, [hence he was thus a descendant of both.] This may also be inferred from the above passage which is written, one of the daughters (plural) of Putiel, which refers to two names. The inference is finally sustained.

(Exod. 9:13:) GO EARLY IN THE MORNING. This text is related (to Prov. 22:29): DO YOU SEE SOMEONE DILIGENT AT HIS WORK?… (Exod. R. 11:1; PR 6:2.) Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah disagree. R. Judah says: It is speaking about Joseph. When he was sold into Egypt, he was diligent in his work (according to Gen. 39:11): AND HE CAME INTO THE HOUSE (of Potiphar) TO DO HIS WORK. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL STAND BEFORE KINGS. This is Joseph. What is written about him (in Gen. 41:46)? Now Joseph was thirty years old [when he stood before Pharaoh, the king of Egypt]. (Prov. 22:29, cont.:) HE SHALL NOT STAND BEFORE THE OBSCURE. This refers to Potiphar's wife. (Cf. Cant. R. 1:1:1, according to which the obscure (literally: darkened) one is Potiphar, whose eyes the Holy One darkened by making him a eunuch. See Gen. 37:36, part of which can be translated, POTIPHAR, A EUNUCH OF PHARAOH.)

Another interpretation (of Eccl. 10:7): I HAVE SEEN SLAVES ON HORSEBACK. < The text > speaks about Midianites (in Gen. 37:36): THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. R. Abbin bar Hama the Levite said: The children of a female slave were selling, and the children of a male slave were buying. (Eccl. R. 10:7:1. Although the Buber text has the singular “child” in both parts of this sentence, the plural verbs require a collective sense. “The child of the female slave” refers to the descendants of Ishmael, whose mother was Abraham’s female slave, Hagar (Gen. 16:1, 15). “The child of the male slave” denotes the descendants of Egypt (Mizraim), whose father was Ham (Gen. 10:6). According to Yalqut Shim‘oni, Exod., 168 (citing Divre haYamim, edited by A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch [Leipzig: Vollrath, 1853—1877], vol. II, pp. 1 — 11), all Ham’s children were slaves (see Gen. 9:22-25).) Between the former and the latter Joseph was sold.

[Gen. 46:28:) NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH.] The text is related (to Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME…. Come and see. Everything which happened to Joseph happened to Zion. (Tanh., Gen. 11:10.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:3): NOW ISRAEL LOVED JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 87:2): THE LORD LOVES ALL THE GATES OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:4): THEY (Joseph's brothers) HATED HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 12:8): < MY HOUSE > HAS SET ITS VOICE AGAINST ME, THEREFORE I HAVE HATED IT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:7): AND HERE WE WERE BINDING SHEAVES; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:6): HE SHALL SURELY COME BACK BEARING HIS SHEAVES WITH REJOICING. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:8): THEN HIS BROTHERS SAID TO HIM: SHALL YOU INDEED REIGN OVER US? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 14:7): WHO SAYS TO ZION: YOUR GOD REIGNS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:5): ONCE JOSEPH DREAMED A DREAM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 126:1): WHEN THE LORD BROUGHT BACK THE RESTORATION OF ZION, WE WERE LIKE DREAMERS. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:10): ARE WE TO COME, I AND YOUR MOTHER AND YOUR BROTHERS, AND BOW DOWN TO THE GROUND FOR YOU? And it is written about Zion (in Is. 49:23): THEY SHALL BOW DOWN FOR YOU, NOSE TO THE GROUND, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:11): SO HIS BROTHERS WERE JEALOUS OF HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Zech. 8:2): I AM JEALOUS FOR JERUSALEM WITH A GREAT JEALOUSY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:14): PLEASE GO AND SEE HOW YOUR BROTHERS ARE FARING (shalom); and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 29:7): AND SEEK THE WELFARE (shalom) OF THE CITY. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): NOW THEY SAW HIM FROM AFAR; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 51:50): REMEMBER THE LORD FROM AFAR. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:18): THEY CONSPIRED AGAINST HIM TO KILL HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 83:4 [3]): THEY DEVISE INTRIGUE AGAINST YOUR PEOPLE. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:23): THEY STRIPPED JOSEPH < OF HIS TUNIC > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ezek. 23:26): AND THEY SHALL STRIP YOU OF YOUR CLOTHES. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): AND THEY CAST HIM INTO THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 3:53): AND THEY HAVE DESTROYED MY LIFE IN THE PIT. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:24): BUT THE PIT WAS EMPTY WITH NO WATER IN IT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:6): AND THERE WAS NO WATER [IN THE PIT], ONLY MUD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:25): THEN THEY SAT DOWN TO EAT BREAD; and it is written about Zion (in Lam. 5:6): < WE HAVE HELD OUT A HAND TO EGYPT >, TO ASSYRIA TO BE FILLED WITH BREAD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:28): THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 38:13): {AND EBED-MELECH THE ETHIOPIAN BROUGHT JEREMIAH UP}…. [AND THEY RAISED JEREMIAH BY THE ROPES AND BROUGHT HIM UP FROM THE PIT]. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:34): THEN JACOB RENT HIS GARMENTS AND PUT SACKCLOTH ON HIS LOINS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:12): AND IN THAT DAY [THE LORD] GOD OF HOSTS CALLED TO WEEPING AND MOURNING, TO BALDNESS AND TO GIRDING WITH SACKCLOTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 22:4): PRESS NOT TO COMFORT ME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 37:36): BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT; and it is written about Zion (in Joel 4:6 [3:6]): AND YOU HAVE SOLD THE CHILDREN OF JUDAH AND THE CHILDREN OF JERUSALEM TO THE CHILDREN OF THE GREEKS. All the bad things which happened to Joseph happened to Zion and likewise the good things. It is stated about Joseph (in Gen. 39:6): NOW JOSEPH WAS BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WITH A BEAUTIFUL APPEARANCE; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 48:3 [2]): BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPE, JOY OF THE WHOLE EARTH, < EVEN MOUNT ZION >. (Cf. above, 9:18.) It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): THE LORD WAS WITH JOSEPH; and it is written about Zion (in I Kings 9:3): MY EYES AND MY HEART SHALL BE THERE FOR ALL TIME. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:9): HE IS NO GREATER < IN THIS HOUSE THAN I > ; and it is written about Zion (in Ps. 99:2): THE LORD IS GREAT IN ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 39:21): AND HE EXTENDED HIS FAITHFULNESS UNTO HIM; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 2:2): I HAVE REMEMBERED IN YOUR FAVOR THE FAITHFULNESS OF YOUR YOUTH. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:14): HE SHAVED AND CHANGED HIS GARMENTS; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 4:4): WHEN THE LORD SHALL HAVE WASHED AWAY THE FILTH OF THE CHILDREN OF ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:40): ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE THRONE SHALL I BE GREATER THAN YOU; and it is written about Zion (in Jer. 3:17): THEY SHALL CALL JERUSALEM THE THRONE OF THE LORD. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 41:42): AND HE CLOTHED HIM WITH CLOTHES OF FINE LINEN; and it is written about Zion (in Is. 52:1): AWAKE, AWAKE, PUT ON YOUR SPLENDOR, O ZION. It is written about Joseph (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM < UNTO JOSEPH TO SHOW THE WAY BEFORE HIM >; and it is written about Zion (in Mal. 3:1): BEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER TO CLEAR A WAY BEFORE ME.

And he sent Judah before him (Gen. 46:28). Scripture states elsewhere: Behold, I send My messenger, and he shall clear the way before Me (Mal. 3:1). Observe that every misfortune that occurred to Joseph likewise befell Zion. It is written of Joseph: and Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Gen. 38:3), and of Zion it is written: God loves the gates of Zion (Ps. 87:2). Concerning Joseph it is stated: And they hated him (Gen. 37:8), and about Zion: She hath uttered her voice against Me, therefore I have hated her (Jer. 12:8). With reference to Joseph it is said: For behold, we are binding sheaves (Gen. 37:7), and in regard to Zion: Ye shall come home with song, bearing sheaves (Ps. 126:6). It is written of Joseph: Shalt thou indeed rule over us? (Gen. 36:8), and of Zion: That sayeth unto Zion: “Thy God reigneth” (Isa. 52:7). Joseph: And Joseph dreamed a dream (Gen. 37:5), and Zion: When the Lord brought back those that returned to Zion, we were like unto them that dream (Ps. 126:1). Joseph: Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down to thee? (Gen. 37:10), Zion: They shall bow down to thee with their face to the earth (Isa. 49:23). Joseph: And his brothers envied him (Gen. 37:11), Zion: I am jealous of Zion with great jealousy (Zech. 8:2). Joseph: Go now, see whether it is well with thy brethren (Gen. 37:14), Zion: Seek the peace of the city (Jer. 29:7). Joseph: They saw him from afar off (Gen. 37:18), Zion: Remember the Lord from afar off (Jer. 51:50). Joseph: And before he came near unto them they conspired (Gen. 37:18), Zion: They hold crafty converse against the people (Ps. 83:4). Joseph: And they stripped Joseph of his coat (Gen. 37:23), Zion: They shall strip thee of thy clothes (Ezek. 23:26). Joseph: They took him and cast him into the pit (Gen. 37:24), Zion: They have cut off my life in the dungeon (Lam. 3:53). Joseph: And the pit was empty (Gen. 37:24), Zion: And in the pit there was no water (Jer. 38:6). Joseph: And they sat down to eat bread (Gen. 37:25), Zion: We have given the hand to Egypt, and to Assyria, to have bread enough (Lam. 5:6). Joseph: And they drew near and lifted up Joseph (Gen. 37:28), Zion: Ebed-Melech the Cushite drew him up (Jer. 38:13). Joseph: And Jacob rent his garments (Gen. 37:34), Zion: And in that day did the Lord, the God of hosts, call to the weeping (Isa. 22:12). Joseph: All his sons and all his daughters rose to comfort him (Gen. 37:35), Zion: Strain not to comfort me (Isa. 22:4). Joseph: And the Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36), Zion: The children also of Jerusalem have ye sold unto the sons of the Jevanim (Joel 4:6).

And his father wept for him. After that Scripture states: The Midianites sold him into Egypt (Gen. 37:36). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah: Until now you had no sons, and did not experience the grief caused by sons, but since you tormented your father, and deceived him with the words Joseph is without doubts torn to pieces (ibid., v. 33), by your life, you shall wed, bury your children, (His sons Er and Onan sinned grievously and were slain (see Gen. 38:7–10).) and suffer the grief that comes with children.” What is written after this verse? Judah went down from his brethren … and he took her … and bore a son (ibid. 38:1–2). This teaches us that Judah became separated from his brothers. If at the time he had said to them: Come, let us sell him (ibid. 37:27), he had said instead: “Come, let us return him (to father),” they would have listened to him. Therefore, Judah went down. That is, he was deposed from his role as leader.

And Reuben went down into the pit to search for Joseph, but he could not find him in the pit, ‎and he came out again. And Reuben rent his garments and he said: The child is not here and ‎how can I comfort my father concerning him, if he be dead? And Reuben went to his brothers ‎and he found them grieving for Joseph and consulting in what manner they were to comfort ‎their father concerning him. And Reuben said unto them: Behold I have come to the pit, but ‎Joseph was not in it, and now what shall we say to our father, for my father will hold me alone ‎accountable for the youth. And his brothers answered unto him: Thus have we done, and our ‎hearts ached afterwards by reason of our action, and now we are seeking for a pretext how to ‎comfort our father concerning our brother. And Reuben said unto them: What is it that you ‎have done, to bring down the gray head of our father with sorrow into the grave? Verily the ‎thing that you have done is not good. And Reuben took his seat in their midst, and all of them ‎arose and swore to each other not to disclose a word unto Jacob and they said: He who will ‎impart this to our father and his household or who will say a word concerning it to any of the ‎people of the land, we will all unite against him and kill him. And the sons of Jacob were afraid ‎of each other from the smallest to the greatest, and they never spoke a word concerning the ‎matter; but they kept it concealed in their hearts. And they sat down together to counsel, to ‎come to a conclusion as to what they would tell unto their father. And Issachar said unto them: ‎Here is an advice for you if it pleaseth you to act accordingly: Take ye Joseph’s coat and tear it ‎up, and slaughter a kid of the goats and dip the coat in its blood, and send it to our father. And ‎he will see it and say, an evil beast hath devoured him, and therefore the coat is torn and ‎bloody, and by doing this thing we will free ourselves from our father's reproaches. And the ‎words of Issachar pleased them well, and they agreed to act upon his advice. And they took ‎quickly Joseph’s coat and they tore it, and they killed a kid from the goats, and they dipped the ‎coat in its blood, and they trampled the coat in the dust. And they forwarded the coat to their ‎father through Naphtali, and they instructed him to speak according to these words: We had ‎gathered in the cattle, and when we reached a little ways beyond Shechem, we found this ‎coat on the road in the wilderness dipped in blood and covered with dust; and now recognize ‎the coat whether it be the coat of thy son or not.‎

And the Lord opened the mouth of the beast in order to comfort Jacob with its words, and it ‎answered unto Jacob and it spake these words: As God liveth who hath created me in the ‎earth, and as thy soul liveth, oh my master, I have not seen thy son nor have I torn him to ‎pieces. . But I am coming from a distant land likewise seeking my son, and as it hath happened ‎unto thee and thy son, even so it hath happened unto me and my son. And it is now ten days ‎since I have come unto this land in search of my son, who hath left me and I know not where ‎he is, and whether he be dead or alive. And when I came to-day unto the field to seek my son, ‎thy sons found me and they seized me, adding grief to my grief, and they brought me to thee ‎this day; and I have spoken unto thee all concerning my affairs. And now, oh son of man, ‎behold I am in thy hands and thou canst do unto me as it seem eth best in thine eyes, this day, ‎but as the Lord liveth who hath created me in the earth, I have not seen thy son, neither have ‎I torn him to pieces, nor has ever human flesh entered my mouth all the days of my life. And ‎when Jacob heard the words of the beast he was greatly astonished, and he released the ‎animal and it went away. And Jacob continued weeping and lamenting for Joseph, and he ‎mourned over his son many days. And the Ishmaelites who bought Joseph from the ‎Midianites who had bought him from his brothers went with Joseph unto Egypt. And when ‎they reached the boundaries of Egypt they met with four men of the sons of Elam, the son of ‎Abraham, who came on their way from Egypt. And the Ishmaelites said unto them: Would you ‎not like to buy this slave from us? And they said: Give him unto us. And they delivered Joseph ‎unto them and they examined him and they saw that he was a lad of very fine appearance and ‎they bought him for nine shekels. And the Ishmaelites went on their journey into Egypt, and ‎the Midianites returned like wise to Egypt on the same day. And they said to each other: ‎Behold we have heard that Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, captain of the guards, is seeking a ‎good servant to stand before him and to minister unto him and to take charge of his house and ‎all belonging unto him. And now let us go and sell him unto him as this is precisely the servant ‎he wants, and he will pay us for him whatsoever we desire. And those Midianites came unto ‎the house of Potiphar, saying unto him: We have heard that thou desirest to procure a good ‎servant to attend thee. Behold we have with us a servant according to thy desire, and if thou ‎canst give unto us what we ask for him, we will sell him unto thee. And Potiphar said unto ‎them : Bring him into my presence, and if he pleaseth me then I will pay for him whatsoever ‎you ask for him. And the Midianites brought Joseph before Potiphar, and Potiphar saw him ‎and he pleased him exceedingly,‎

‎And the Midianites answered and said unto the sons of Jacob: Is this really your servant and ‎was he ministering to you? It is more likely that you all are his servants, for surely he is of a ‎very fine figure and of comely appearance, and the best looking of all of you and wherefore do ‎ye tell unto us these lies? And now we will not listen unto you nor give ear unto your words; ‎for we have found this lad in a pit in the wilderness and we took him, and we will go away with ‎him. And all the sons of Jacob advanced and stood up against them, saying: Give unto us our ‎servant, and why do ye seek to die by the edge of the sword ' And the Midianites shouted at ‎them and drew their swords, and they fought with the sons of Jacob. And Simeon rose up ‎from his feet jumping to the ground, and drawing his sword he approached the Midianites, ‎and he gave a fearful shriek before them. And his shouting was heard at a great distance, and ‎the earth shook at Simeon’s voice. And the Midianites were greatly afraid of Simeon and his ‎terrible shouting, and they fell upon their faces in terror. And Simeon said unto them: Verily I ‎am Simeon the son of Jacob, who destroyed single handed the city of Shechem, and the other ‎cities of the Amorites with the help of my brothers. And so may the Lord do unto me now and ‎in all future, that if all your brethren the people of Midian together with all the people of ‎Canaan were to come, they could not fight against me. And now give back unto us the lad you ‎have taken, or I will give your flesh to the birds of the heavens and to the beasts of the ‎field.And the Midianites approached the sons of Jacob in fear and trembling with soft words, ‎saying: And have ye not said that this lad is your servant who rebelled against you, wherefore ‎you have cast him into the pit? And now what will you do with a servant that hath rebelled ‎against his master? Sell him then unto us and we will give you for him whatsoever you ‎demand. And the Lord was pleased to do this, that the sons of Jacob should not slay their ‎brother.‎

And the sons of Jacob hearkened unto the Midianites, and they sold unto them their brother ‎Joseph for twenty pieces of silver; and their brother Reuben was not with them at that time. ‎And the Midianites took Joseph and continued on their way toward Gilead. And as they ‎passed on along the road, the Midianites were sorry for what they had done in buying the ‎youth, and they said one to the other: What is it that we have done to buy from the Hebrews ‎this young man of such comely appearance and fine figure? For he may have been stolen from ‎the land of the Hebrews, and if he be found in our hands all of us will be put to death on his ‎account. And verily they are strong and powerful men, like the one of those that sold him unto ‎us, and whose strength we have seen. They have certainly carried him away forcibly from his ‎land, and therefore they sold him unto us for such a small price as we have paid for him. And ‎while they were talking over this matter, behold the company of Ish maelites, which was first ‎seen by the sons of Jacob, came towards the Midianites. And the Midianites said to each ‎other: Come and let us sell this lad to the company of Ishmaelites that come towards us, and ‎even if we should receive for him only the little we have paid, let us get out of trouble. And ‎the Midianites did so, and they sold Joseph unto the Ishmaelites, for the twenty pieces of ‎silver which they had paid unto his brothers, and the Midianites continued their journey ‎towards Gilead, and the Ishmaelites took Joseph and seated him upon a camel and they led ‎him down into Egypt. And when Joseph heard that he was to be brought down to Egypt he ‎wept and lamented bitterly, to be removed so far away from the land of Canaan from his ‎father. And he wept greatly while riding upon the camel, and one of the men noticing his ‎weeping made Joseph alight from the camel and go on foot, but Joseph still kept on crying, oh ‎my father, my father! And one of the Ishmaelites arose and struck Joseph on his cheek, but he ‎still continued weeping. And Joseph became very fatigued from walking and from the ‎bitterness of his soul, and all of the Ishmaelites beat him and abused him and they terrified ‎him that he should cease crying. And the Lord saw Joseph’s affliction and the Lord brought ‎over these men darkness and dismay, and every hand withered that struck Joseph. And they ‎said to one another: What is it that hath happened to us on this journey? And they knew not ‎that it was done on account of Joseph.‎

And the men continued their journey and on their road they passed Ephrath the place where ‎Rachel was buried. And when Joseph came near his mother's grave, he ran to the grave and he ‎fell upon it and wept. And Joseph cried out loudly upon his mother's grave, saying: Oh my ‎mother, my mother, thou who gavest me birth, awake and arise now to see thy son sold unto ‎slavery with no one to have compassion upon him. Oh arise to look at thy son, and weep with ‎me in my affliction, and see the hearts of my brothers. Oh my mother arouse and awake and ‎direct thy warfare against my brothers, who have stripped me of my coat and sold me into ‎slavery now for the second time, and have torn me away from my father where there is no ‎one to have pity upon me. Arouse and bring thy complaints against them before the Lord and ‎see who is to be justified in the judgment and who is to be condemned. Arise oh my mother, ‎awake from thy sleep, and see my father whose soul is with me this day, and comfort him and ‎console his heart. And Joseph spoke continually to his mother; and he cried aloud and wept ‎bitterly upon his mother's grave; and he ceased speaking and from the bitterness of his heart ‎he became silent like a stone upon the grave. And Joseph heard a voice speaking unto him ‎from under the ground, answering him in bitterness of heart in a voice of weeping and prayer, ‎in these words: My son Joseph, oh my son, I have heard the voice of thy weeping and crying, ‎and I have seen thy tears and I know thy affliction, oh my son It grieveth me for thy sake, oh ‎my son. And new sorrow hath been added to my sorrow. And now my son Joseph, hope thou ‎in the Lord and wait for his help and do not fear, for the Lord is with thee to deliver thee from ‎all trouble. Arise my son and go down with thy masters unto Egypt, and do not fear for the ‎Lord is with thee my son And she continued to speak unto Joseph according to these words ‎and then she was silent. And when Joseph heard this he was greatly astonished, and he kept ‎on weeping. And one of the Ishmaelites saw him weeping and lamenting over the grave, and ‎his wrath was kindled against Joseph, and he drove him away from the grave, and he beat him ‎and cursed him. And Joseph said unto the men: Let me find grace in your eyes and carry me ‎back unto my father's house, and he will reward you with great riches. And they answered ‎unto him, saying: Verily thou art a slave and where is thy father? For hadst thou a father thou ‎shouldst not have been sold into slavery, this the second time, and for such a small price. And ‎their anger was excited against him, and they beat him and Joseph wept bitterly. And the Lord ‎saw Joseph's affliction, and he smote these men once more.

And the Lord brought darkness over the earth, and the lightning was flashing, and the thunder ‎was roaring, and the earth shook at the noise of the thunder and the great storm, and the ‎men were greatly alarmed and they knew not whither they should go. And the beasts and the ‎camels stood still, and when they were led they refused to go on, and when they were ‎smitten they lay down upon the ground. And the men said to each other: What is that God ‎hath done unto us, what are our sins and our transgressions that this had to come over us? ‎And one of them answered and said unto them: Peradventure on account of our sins in ‎afflicting this slave hath this evil befallen us this day. And now entreat him and urge him on to ‎forgive us, that we know on whose account this affliction hath come over us. And if the Lord ‎have mercy upon us, then we will know that all this hath happened unto us for the sin of ‎afflicting this slave. And they did so. And they entreated Joseph and begged him to forgive ‎them, saying: We have sinned against heaven and before thee, and therefore we implore ‎thee pray unto thy God to remove from us this death, for we have sinned against him. And ‎Joseph did according to their words, and he prayed unto the Lord, and the Lord hearkened ‎unto Joseph, and he removed from them the plague wherewith the Lord had visited the ‎Ishmaelites, on account of Joseph. And the beasts rose up from the ground and became ‎manageable and walked on, and the great storm subsided, and the earth became quiet, and ‎the men continued their journey towards Egypt. And the men knew that this affliction had ‎come over them on account of Joseph, and they said to each other: Behold, now we know ‎that for the sin of afflicting this slave, all that evil hath come over us. Come then and let us ‎consult what we shall do concerning him, for why should we expose ourselves further to such ‎a terrible plague. And one of them said: Verily he hath told unto us to bring him back unto his ‎father, and now let us carry him back to the place he will designate, and we will take from his ‎family the price that we paid for him and go our way. And one answered, saying: Thy counsel is ‎very wise but we cannot do accordingly; for we have gone a great distance from his place and ‎we cannot turn away from our road. And still another said unto them: This is the counsel we ‎will now follow without further delay. We are going down unto Egypt this day, and there we ‎will sell him for a high price, and thus we will be delivered from his evil. And they were all ‎pleased with these words, and they continued their journey unto Egypt, taking Joseph along ‎with them. And after the sons of Jacob had sold Joseph unto the Midianites, their hearts beat ‎within them for their brother and they repented of what they had done, and they searched ‎for him to bring him back but they could not find him. And Reuben returned unto the pit ‎wherein Joseph had been in order to take him out and return him unto his father, and he ‎stood by the pit crying: Joseph, Joseph, but he heard not a word in answer. And Reuben ‎exclaimed: Poor Joseph he must have died for fright, or he hath been killed by one of the ‎serpents.‎

(Bamidbar 31:6) "And Moses sent them, a thousand to a tribe to the host, them and Pinchas": We are hereby apprised that they were as "weighty" as Pinchas, and Pinchas was over and against all of them. Why did Pinchas go and not Elazar? Because Pinchas went to take revenge (of the Midianites) for his mother's father (Yithro, viz. Shemot 2:16), it being written (Bereshit 37:36) "And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) to Egypt." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and the holy articles … in his hand": This refers to the ark, viz. (Ibid. 4:20) "And they shall not see when the 'holy' is being covered, lest they die." (Ibid. 31:6) "in his hand": "his hand" is his domain, as in (Ibid. 21:26) "and he took all his land from his hand," and (Bereshit 24:10) "and all the good of his master in his hand."

And Midianite men passed There are commentaries that the Midianites heard him screaming in the pit, and brought him up, and kidnapped him, and sold him to Yishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver, and made a great profit from this since they hadn't spent anything on him. The Yishmaelites then brought him down to Egypt, and what it says at the end of the parsha, "And the Midianites sold him to Egypt..." (Bereishit 37:36), is that they sold him in order to bring him down to Egypt, and this is not just lies! For behild, it's written there "to Potifar", and further, that in that place it's difficult why he didn't reveal himself. And also, there is one who says Madanim [מדנים] and Midaynim [מדיינים], [called this] for the name of the cargo that they carry, such as in Iyov 38:31 "Can you bind the cords [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת] of the Pleiades?", or I Samuel 15:32 "And Agag came to him in chains [ma'adnot; מַעֲדַנּוֹת]". And sometimes the ayin is omitted, for it's usual to omit the letters alef, chet, hey and ayin. For example, "and laid in wait [vayarev, וַיָּרֶב] in a valley" (I Samuel 15:5), which is like vaye'arev ויארב. And so too is explained "sitters on couches [midin, מִדִּין]" (Shoftim 5:10), that it's like on the cargo which is bound. And all of this isn't worth anything to me, but it was one people, as I have explained, just as they call us sometimes Yehudim and sometimes Yisra'elim and sometimes Yeshurun. And the truth is that his brothers sold him, as he said to them "that have sold me here" (Bereishit 45:4), and [the merchants?] caused them to swear, as I have explained, and made from them great profit, like a man who sells his field because of its poor quality, for they would give of their own that someone would distance it from them, for in they end they hated him with a hatred.

And Pinchas. He went to take revenge for Yoseif. He saw that the Midianites were opposed to Yoseif, and that was the reason the sale of Yoseif took place through them, because harm comes to a person through those that oppose him. Yoseif was the opposite of Midian because he restrained himself from illicit relations and, in contrast, they sent their daughters to harlotry. Thus, they received harm from the descendent of Yoseif.

תאניה ואניה Heaviness and sorrow. Comp. ואנו and they shall mourn (19:8). According to others, A waste place, the two words being derived from אנה where; the meaning of the phrase is, that only her place will be left. (Concerning the use of two different forms of the same word consecutively, see I. E. on 3:1, and note 1.)

Them and Pinchas. Rashi explained that he sought to avenge Yoseif, his maternal forefather. The explanation of this is that Moshe trusted him not to have pity on the Midianites and that he would completely eliminate them, because in any case Pinchas hated them due to their involvement in the sale of Yoseif to Egypt. Egypt was a place heavily steeped in licentiousness, and now the Midianites followed their forefathers’ footsteps and attempted to cause the downfall of Bnei Yisroel through harlotry. Moreover, Pinchas began the mitzvah, which would assist him in bringing the matter to completion. This is because since it is so that “a mitzvah brings about another mitzvah” (Avos 4:5), then certainly a part of a mitzvah will bring about the completion of it. Moshe did not want to go, because he was raised in Midian. He was afraid that if the warriors would be lax in any matter, the people would blame it on Moshe, and say that he had pity on the place in which he was raised.

אתם ואת פינחס [MOSES SENT THEM … TO THE WAR], THEM AND PHINEAS — The repetition of the word אתם, “them”, in association with Phineas’ name tells us that Phineas was regarded as equal to all of them together. — But why did Phineas go and Eleazar did not go? The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “He who made a beginning with this meritorious work, in that he slew Kozbi the daughter of Zur (who was a Midianitess), let him complete it”. — Another explanation why Phineas and not Eleazar went is that he went to take vengeance for Joseph, his mother’s ancestor, as it is said, (Genesis 37:36) “And the Midianites sold him [unto Egypt]”. And from where do we know that Phineas’ mother was of the family of Joseph? Because it is said, (Exodus 6:25) that she was “one of the daughters of Putiel” (see Rashi on that verse) — which is explained to mean that she was of the seed of Jethro who used to fatten (פטם) calves for idolatrous worship, and of the seed of Joseph who overcame (שפטפט, who talked or argued with) his passions (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 157:4; Sotah 43a). — Another explanation: Phineas went because he was the high priest anointed for war purposes (cf. Deuteronomy 20:2 and Rashi thereon) (Sotah 43a).

Genesis 37:1-36

As has been the pattern with the Avraham and Yaakov cycles, the opening chapter here introduces the key themes of the entire story. These include the father’s love, the power of words, dreams, “ill” as a key word (here denoting evil intent but eventually encompassing misfortune, among other concepts), and of course, the brothers’ hatred, which at first glance is the motivating force behind the action. But the initial blame for what happens clearly lies with the father (vv.3–4), and is made unbearable by Yosef’s own behavior. In point of fact he is largely responsible for his own downfall, bearing tales about his brothers (v.2) even before Yaakov’s preference for him is noted. His insistence on telling his dreams to his brothers must be galling, particularly the second time (v.9), coming as it does after the report that “they hated him still more for his dreams” (v.8). The key word of the chapter, not surprisingly, is “brother,” culminating in Yehuda’s ironic words (v.27): “let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother….” Shortly afterward Yosef, their “(own) flesh,” is sold into slavery and probable death.

[210] The weak-willed incontinent soul has three servants who provide its feasts, the chief baker, the chief butler and the chief cook, whom our most admirable Moses mentions in these words, “And Pharaoh was wroth with his two eunuchs, with the chief butler and the chief baker, and he put them in prison under the chief gaoler” (Gen. 40:2, 3). But the chief cook is also a eunuch, for we have in another place, “and Joseph was brought down into Egypt and became the property of the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 39:1), and again “they sold Joseph to the eunuch of Pharaoh, the chief cook” (Gen. 37:36).

A tanna taught: It was not for nothing that specifically Pinehas went to war with Midian; rather, it was to exact the rightful judgment of his mother’s father, Joseph, as it is stated: “And the Midianites sold him into Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s” (Genesis 37:36). The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Pinehas came, on his mother’s side, from the family of Joseph? But it is written: “And Elazar, Aaron’s son, took himself a wife from the daughters of Putiel; and she bore him Pinehas” (Exodus 6:25). What, is it not that Pinehas came from the family of Yitro, who was also called Putiel because he fattened [pittem] calves for idol worship? They answer: No; he was descended from Joseph, who mocked [pitpet] his desire by resisting the advances of Potiphar’s wife.

And in the ninth year of his (his I.e., Zedekiah’s.) reign, on the tenth day of the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar moved against Jerusalem with his whole army. He besieged it; and they built towers against it all around. The city continued in a state of siege until the eleventh year of King Zedekiah. By the ninth day [of the fourth month] ([of the fourth month] Cf. Jer. 52.6.) the famine had become acute in the city; there was no food left for the common people. Then [the wall of] the city was breached. All the soldiers [left the city] by night through the gate between the double walls, which is near the king’s garden—the Chaldeans were all around the city; and [the king] set out for the Arabah. (Arabah Hoping to escape across the Jordan.) But the Chaldean troops pursued the king, and they overtook him in the steppes of Jericho as his entire force left him and scattered. They captured the king and brought him before the king of Babylon at Riblah; and they put him on trial. They slaughtered Zedekiah’s sons before his eyes; then Zedekiah’s eyes were put out. He was chained in bronze fetters and he was brought to Babylon. On the seventh day of the fifth month—that was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon—Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, an officer of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. He burned the House of GOD, the king’s palace, and all the houses of Jerusalem; he burned down the house of every notable person. (the house of every notable person Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) The entire Chaldean force that was with the chief of the guard tore down the walls of Jerusalem on every side. The remnant of the people that was left in the city, the defectors who had gone over to the king of Babylon—and the remnant of the population—were taken into exile by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards. But some of the poorest in the land were left by the chief of the guards, to be vinedressers and field hands. The Chaldeans broke up the bronze columns of the House of GOD, the stands, and the bronze tank that was in the House of GOD; and they carried the bronze away to Babylon. They also took all the pails, scrapers, snuffers, ladles, and all the other bronze vessels used in the service. The chief of the guards took whatever was of gold and whatever was of silver: firepans and sprinkling bowls. The two columns, the one tank, and the stands that Solomon provided for the House of GOD—all these objects contained bronze beyond weighing. The one column was eighteen cubits high. It had a bronze capital above it; the height of the capital was three cubits, and there was a meshwork [decorated] with pomegranates about the capital, all made of bronze. And the like was true of the other column with its meshwork. The chief of the guards also took Seraiah, the chief priest, Zephaniah, the deputy priest, and the three guardians of the threshold. And from the city he took a eunuch who was in command of the soldiers; five of the royal privy councillors who were present in the city; the scribe of the army commander, who was in charge of mustering the people of the land; and sixty of the common people who were inside the city. Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, took them and brought them to the king of Babylon at Riblah. The king of Babylon had them struck down and put to death at Riblah, in the region of Hamath. Thus Judah was exiled from its land. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon put Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan in charge of the people whom he left in the land of Judah. When the officers of the troops and their men heard that the king of Babylon had put Gedaliah in charge, they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah with Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth the Netophathite, and Jaazaniah son of the Maachite, together with their men. Gedaliah reassured them (reassured them Lit. “took an oath to them.”) and their men, saying, “Do not be afraid of the servants of the Chaldeans. (of the servants of the Chaldeans Cf. Jer. 40.9 “to serve the Chaldeans.”) Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you.” In the seventh month, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, who was of royal descent, came with ten men, and they struck down Gedaliah and he died; [they also killed] the Judeans and the Chaldeans who were present with him at Mizpah. And all the people, young and old, and the officers of the troops set out and went to Egypt because they were afraid of the Chaldeans. In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of the twelfth month, King Evil-merodach of Babylon, in the year he became king, took note of (took note of Lit. “raised the head of.”) King Jehoiachin of Judah and released him from prison. He spoke kindly to him, and gave him a throne above those of other kings who were with him in Babylon. His prison garments were removed, and [Jehoiachin] received regular rations by his favor for the rest of his life. A regular allotment of food was given him at the king’s behest—an allotment for each day—all the days of his life.

In the ninth year of King Zedekiah of Judah, in the tenth month, King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon moved against Jerusalem with his whole army, and they laid siege to it. And in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the fourth month, the [walls of] the city were breached. All the officers of the king of Babylon entered, and took up quarters at the middle gate—Nergal-sarezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim the Rab-saris, Nergal-sarezer the Rab-mag, (Rab-saris…Rab-mag Titles of officers.) and all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon. When King Zedekiah of Judah saw them, he and all the soldiers fled. They left the city at night, by way of the king’s garden, through the gate between the double walls; and he set out toward the Arabah. (he set out toward the Arabah Hoping to escape across the Jordan.) But the Chaldean troops pursued them, and they overtook Zedekiah in the steppes of Jericho. They captured him and brought him before King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon at Riblah in the region of Hamath; and he put him on trial. The king of Babylon had Zedekiah’s sons slaughtered at Riblah before his eyes; the king of Babylon had all the nobles of Judah slaughtered. Then the eyes of Zedekiah were put out and he was chained in bronze fetters, that he might be brought to Babylon. The Chaldeans burned down the king’s palace and the houses (houses Taking Heb. singular as collective, with Kimhi.) of the people by fire, and they tore down the walls of Jerusalem. The remnant of the people that was left in the city, and the defectors who had gone over to him—the remnant of the people that was left—were exiled by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, to Babylon. But some of the poorest people who owned nothing were left in the land of Judah by Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, and he gave them vineyards and fields at that time. King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon had given orders to Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, concerning Jeremiah: “Take him and look after him; do him no harm, but grant whatever he asks of you.” So Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, and Nebushazban the Rab-saris, and Nergal-sarezer the Rab-mag, and all the commanders of the king of Babylon sent and had Jeremiah brought from the prison compound. They committed him to the care of Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan, that he might be left at liberty in a house. (that he might be left at liberty in a house Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) So he dwelt among the people. The word of GOD had come to Jeremiah while he was still confined in the prison compound: Go and say to Ebed-melech the Cushite: “Thus said GOD of Hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to fulfill My words concerning this city—for disaster, not for good—and they shall come true on that day in your presence. But I will save you on that day—declares GOD; you shall not be delivered into the hands of those you dread. I will rescue you, and you shall not fall by the sword. You shall escape with your life, (You shall escape with your life See note at 38.2.) because you trusted Me—declares GOD.” The word that came to Jeremiah from GOD, after Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, set him free at Ramah, to which he had taken him, chained in fetters, among those from Jerusalem and Judah who were being exiled to Babylon. The chief of the guards took charge of Jeremiah, and he said to him, “The ETERNAL your God threatened this place with this disaster; and now GOD has brought it about, by acting on the threat—because you sinned against GOD and did not pay heed. That is why this has happened to you. Now, I release you this day from the fetters that were on your hands. If you would like to go with me to Babylon, come, and I will look after you. And if you don’t want to come with me to Babylon, you need not. See, the whole land is before you: go wherever seems good and right to you.”— But [Jeremiah] still did not turn back. (But [Jeremiah] still did not turn back Meaning of Heb. uncertain.) —“Or go to Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon has put in charge of the towns of Judah, and stay with him among the people, or go wherever you want to go.” The chief of the guards gave him an allowance of food, and dismissed him. So Jeremiah came to Gedaliah son of Ahikam at Mizpah, and stayed with him among the people who were left in the land. The army officers in the open country, and their men with them, heard that the king of Babylon had put Gedaliah son of Ahikam in charge of the region, and that he had put in his charge the men, women, and children—of the poorest in the land—those who had not been exiled to Babylon. So they with their men came to Gedaliah at Mizpah—Ishmael son of Nethaniah; Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah; Seraiah son of Tanhumeth; the sons of Ephai the Netophathite; and Jezaniah son of the Maacathite. Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan reassured (reassured Lit. “swore to.”) them and their men, saying, “Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it will go well with you. I am going to stay in Mizpah to attend upon the Chaldeans who will come to us. But you may gather wine and figs (figs Lit. “summer fruit.”) and oil and put them in your own vessels, and settle in the towns you have occupied.” Likewise, all the Judeans who were in Moab, Ammon, and Edom, or who were in other lands, heard that the king of Babylon had let a remnant stay in Judah, and that he had put Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan in charge of them. All these Judeans returned from all the places to which they had scattered. They came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and they gathered large quantities of wine and figs. (figs See note at v. 10.) Johanan son of Kareah, and all the army officers in the open country, came to Gedaliah at Mizpah and said to him, “Do you know that King Baalis of Ammon has sent Ishmael son of Nethaniah to kill you?” But Gedaliah son of Ahikam would not believe them. Johanan son of Kareah also said secretly to Gedaliah at Mizpah, “Let me go and strike down Ishmael son of Nethaniah—and nobody else will know about it; otherwise he will kill you, and all the Judeans who have gathered about you will be dispersed, and the remnant of Judah will perish!” But Gedaliah son of Ahikam answered Johanan son of Kareah, “Do not do such a thing: what you are saying about Ishmael is not true!”

On the tenth day of the fifth month—that was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadrezzar, the king of Babylon—Nebuzaradan, the chief of the guards, came to represent (to represent Lit. “he stood before.”) the king of Babylon in Jerusalem.

The Midianites sold him in Egypt to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the chief of the slaughterers.

To Potiphar an officer of Pharoh, a captain of the guards.

But the Midianites sold him in Mizraim to Potiphar a captain of Pharoh, a captain of the guards.

“… and Yehuda went down from his brothers ….” (Bereshit, 38:1) Why did Yehuda go and wed a wife at this particular time? When he saw how Yaakov refused to be consoled, and as he was the one who had to bring Yosef’s coat to his father, he became depressed, and felt as if, God forbid, there was no more hope. So he went to marry a wife, saying, “perhaps I will have good children from whom will grow an everlasting structure.” (This is why his son’s name was Er, which means awake, as if to say that it would awaken the spirit to descend on us from God. Tashlum.) Then afterwards, the Holy One, blessed be He, caused him to understand the following. If, God forbid, it is as you think, and there is no hope for you, and you have no life at your root, if so, then even if you give birth to a hundred, they will not have any more life than you. For with God, the channel through which He sends life must itself be of life. Then, if it is as you think, that you will only have temporary life, then it will be so also with your descendants. Therefore, when the matter became clear to him, he fathered Shela, his name Shela meaning misled, the mistake he made in this matter. This is why his first two sons died, and Shela remained alive.

At that time. This episode is inserted here to compare the founding of Yehudah’s dynasty with that of Yoseif’s dynasty, and to show how Providence saw to it that none of Yaakov’s offspring would be lost, so that even the sinful Er and Onan were replaced by the righteous Peretz and Zorach. Yehudah descended. He wanted to distance himself from his brothers’ cruelty as well as from his father’s sorrow. Nevertheless, from the fact that he went with his brothers to Egypt it is clear that he did not sever his ties to them altogether. She is righteous, [it is] from me. I had thought my two sons died on her account, but now I see that it was due to their own wickedness, for she has conceived through me yet I am still alive (Abarbanel).

וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, “Yehudah separated from his brothers;” he could not bear watching the anguish of his father. Rashi here writes that the word וירד, which means: “he descended,” means that he had been deposed from his position of being the brothers’ spokesman and leader by the other brothers. He derives this from the expression: מאת, understanding the meaning of that word as being: על ידי, “through the action of;”You could well ask that seeing that it took only 22 years until the brothers under the leadership of Yehudah went down to Egypt in order to buy grain, how was it possible that during these few years not only did Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife bear him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah, but that two of them had already become married? And a few years after the death of Onan, Yehudah sired twins from his daughterinlaw Tamar, all before the descent of the brothers to Egypt for the first time? The answer to such questions is that in those times girls and boys were able to both sire and conceive and give birth already at the age of seven. According to a historical text accepted by our sages as accurate and reliable, called seder olam, Er, Yehudah’s oldest was born approximately a year after the sale of Joseph. Bat Shua bore Yehudah two more sons in short order, before she died (verse 12). When Er was seven years old he married Tamar. When he died and married Onan, and Onan died, Shelah was still too young to marry. Tamar remained a widow in the house of Yehudah for a year before returning to her mother’s home. When two or three more years had passed and she was not allowed to marry Shelah, she took matters into her own hands and contrived to become pregnant from a member of Yaakov’s family, her dearest desire, i.e. she became pregnant by her fatherinlaw, Yehudah. All of this had only taken about 19 years after Yehudah had been deposed and moved away from his brothers. In the meantime, Peretz, one of the twins Tamar had born to Yehudah had married at the age of seven and had himself become a father of Chetzron and Chamul, (Genesis 46,12) all before Yaakov and his family moved down to Egypt after the brothers’ second trip there. By the time Chetzron and Chamul came to Egypt, only twenty two years had elapsed since the sale of Joseph.[While this is interesting, this Editor cannot reconcile it with G-d having punished both Er and Onan at the tender age of 7 or eight years, for having deliberately failed to produce children (38,7 and 10) Where is the source for the culpability of such young children anywhere? Ed.]

וירד יהודה, “Yehudah descended;” our sages explained that this choice of words by the Torah means that Yehudah’s brothers, who up until then had considered him as their leader and spokesman, demoted him on account of the sale of their brother Joseph and the anguish this had caused their father. (B’reshit Rabbah, 85,1) Ibn Ezra questioned this, seeing that only twenty two years elapsed between the sale of Joseph and the reunification of the brothers with him and the family’s moving to Egypt. We know that Joseph had been seventeen years old when he had been sold; we also know that he was thirty years old when he interpreted Pharaoh’s dream; we further know that the family descended to Egypt in the second year of the famine, i.e. nine years after Joseph had been appointed viceroy of Egypt. If you count the years from the time Yehudah got married to the daughter of the man described earlier until the descent of the whole family with Yehudah at their head more than twenty two years must have passed. If we count a year each for the time Yehudah’s wife was pregnant with each of her three sons, and add the years after Onan’s death during which Shelah grew to maturity, i.e. was old enough to get married, you already have accounted for 16 years. Add a year till Peretz could have been born and you have accounted for already 17 years. Even if you were to assume that Peretz was no more than 7 years old when he became the father of Chetzron and another year for the birth of his brother Chamul, all of whom are listed in Genesis chapter 46 as having come to Egypt with Yaakov and Yehudah, you already have accounted for 25 years not 22. One would have to say that when Shelah was described as having “grown” up, the Torah refers to his having become 9 years old, at which age it is possible to produce semen fit to sire a child. We can find support for this from the Talmud, tractate Niddah, folio 45, where the Mishnah discusses a nine year old who performed the levirate marriage ceremony on his sister-in-law whose husband had died without having had any children, that he cannot give such a sister-in-law a decree of divorce until he reaches the age of 13, as a minor cannot divorce his wife. Moreover, the original marriage of his deceased brother had been a marriage in the full sense of the word, and what he did was only to substitute for his deceased brother, so that any divorce cannot be less complete than that. According to an opinion quoted in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, folio 69, there were periods in former eras when seven year old males were able to impregnate females with their semen.

AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME. This does not refer to the time that Joseph was sold. (As the sequence of chapters would tend to indicate.) It refers to the events that happened prior to that time. From thence they journeyed unto Gudgod…At that time the Lord separated the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of the Lord, to stand before the Lord to minister unto Him, and to bless in His name, unto this day (Deut. 10:7, 8) is similar. (The two events described in the latter verse did not take place at the same time even though Deut. 10:8 says, At that time.) The tribe of Levi was chosen to minister unto the Lord in the second year while Israel journeyed to Gudgod in the fortieth year. (Following the Exodus.) I will explain the latter verses in their proper place. Why, then, did Scripture insert this chapter (Chap. 38) at this point when logic dictates that And Joseph was brought down to Egypt (Gen. 39:1) should follow And the Midianites sold him (Joseph) into Egypt (Gen. 37:36)? (That is, Chap. 39 should follow Chap. 37.) The Bible placed this chapter (38) here to contrast the behavior of Joseph vis-a-vis his master’s wife with that of Judah toward his daughter-in-law. (Joseph controlled his passions. When Potiphar’s wife said to him, Lie with me (Gen. 39:7) he refused. On the other hand when Judah saw the harlot in the entrance to Enaim he said to her, Come, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee (Gen. 38:16).) What forced me to offer this interpretation is the fact that only twenty-two years passed between the sale of Joseph and the descent of our ancestors into Egypt. (Joseph was 17 when sold. He was 30 when appointed vizier over Egypt. Jacob came to Egypt after seven years of plenty and two of hunger passed. Thus a total of 22 years passed from the sale of Joseph to Jacob’s descent into Egypt (Cherez). It is impossible for the events described in Chap. 38 to have occurred in such a short time.) Now we learn in this chapter of the birth of Onan, Judah’s second son, (The point is that not only does Scripture tell of the birth of Er, the eldest son of Judah, it also tells of the birth of and marriage of his second son, Onan, as well. Er was at least close to a year older than Onan. Thus at least 13 years had to pass between the sale of Joseph and the marriage of Onan and Tamar.) and his reaching the age of procreation, which at the very earliest starts at the age of 12. Scripture goes on to state, And in the process of time (v. 12). (The Hebrew literally reads, and the days became many. That is, following Onan’s death Tamar, his widow, dwelt in her father’s house for a long time.) The chapter then tells us that Tamar conceived and gave birth to Perez. This same Perez came to Egypt with two sons of his own (Gen. 46:12). (We thus have to allow at least 13 years for the birth and marriage of Onan. We have to allow for the years that Tamar spent in her father’s house. We have to allow 12 years for Perez’s coming of age and two each for the birth of his sons. All of this could not have happened in 22 years, even assuming the above minimum figures.) Do not be disturbed by the question of Bezalel, (According to the Talmud the early generations produced children at the age of eight. If this is the case then it is possible for all of the above to have taken place in 22 years: namely, Er was married in the ninth year after Joseph’s sale. A year later Onan married. Tamar then stayed for many days in her father’s house. We can interpret many days to mean a year. Eight years later Perez gave birth to a son and a year later to a second one. Thus it is possible for all that is reported in Chap. 38 to have taken place between the sale of Joseph and the descent into Egypt. The Talmud concludes from the account of Bezalel that the early generations had children at the age of eight We read in Sanhedrin 69b: “Whence do we know that the first generations produced children at eight years? This is to be inferred from the following: Bezalel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah (Ex. 35:30), and it is written:..And Caleb (the son of Hezron) took unto him Ephrath, who bore him Hur. And Hur begot Uri, and Uri begot Bezalel (I Chron. 2:19, 20). When Bezalel was engaged in building the Tabernacle he was at least 13 years old as it is written, came every man from his work which they wrought (Ex. 36:4) and one is not called a man before the age of 13. And there is a Baraitha which states: The first year Moses prepared all that was necessary for the Tabernacle, and in the second year he erected it and sent the spies. And it is written: And Caleb the son of Jephunneh said…Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea (Josh. 14:6, 7) Now deduct 14, the age of Bezalel, from the age of Caleb when he was sent as a spy and there remains 26. Deduct two years for the three pregnancies with Uri and Hur and Bezalel, and there remains 24. Hence each of them produced children at the age of 8.” It should be noted that the above is based on identifying Caleb ben Hezron (I Chron. 2:18-20) as Caleb ben Jephunneh (Josh. 14:6, 7). However, according to I.E. these two Calebs were not the same. Hence, the entire Talmudic passage quoted above is Aggadic and not in keeping with the plain meaning of the text.) for I will explain it when I come to it.

38.1. וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, Yehudah descended and turned from his brothers, etc. Our sages in Sotah 13 say that the brothers demoted him. Ibn Ezra says that anyone who comes from the northern part of the world to the South is considered as "descending." What he said is correct; it does not apply here, however, because then the Torah need not have added: "from his brothers." This clearly indicates that Yehudah's descent, i.e. demotion, was caused by his brothers. It also says: ויט עד איש, "he turned to a certain person, etc." Our sages are quite correct when they interpret the word וירד as a moral descent and the words ויט, etc., are integral to the verse.

ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, “it was at about that time that Yehudah descended.” Actually, the passage about Joseph being brought down to Egypt (39,1) should have been the natural continuation at this point. The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:2 explains that the reason the Torah inserted this chapter about Yehudah and his marriage was to draw our attention to the fact that Yehudah’s having counseled selling Joseph had become the cause for his “descent,” i.e. for his losing the role of leadership amongst his brothers. When the brothers observed the inconsolable state of mind of their father they blamed Yehudah for being the cause of it telling him that if only he had stopped them and had suggested that they return Joseph to his father they would have listened to him.” A kabbalistic approach: the paragraph describing a levirate marriage was appended to the paragraph describing the sale of Joseph as both paragraphs deal with the subject of גלגול, a form of reincarnation, complete transformation of one’s fate. It is a fact that the sin committed by the brothers was of the type that could be atoned for by nothing less than reincarnation of their souls in different bodies. This is also the mystical dimension of the levirate marriage (widow of a brother who died without having sired children to one of the surviving brothers, compare Deut. 25:5-10). The mystical dimension of the levirate marriage is the same as the mystical dimension of reincarnation of the souls in a new body. The ten martyrs whom the Romans chose to expiate for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph were none other than reincarnations of the brothers’ souls in different bodies. By dying a martyr’s death the millennia-old sin overhanging them was finally expiated. Er and Onan, the sons of Yehudah who died prematurely for committing a sin, were similarly reincarnated in the bodies of the twin sons Peretz and Zerach whom Tamar bore for Yehudah (verse 29). This is the deeper meaning of the sequence (Numbers 26:19-20) “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and the sons of Yehudah were , etc.” All this is alluded to here through the sequence in which the Torah relates these events, something which the intelligent reader will comprehend. As to the problem that there were ten such martyrs at the hands of the Romans whereas only nine of the brothers were actively involved in the sale of Joseph, seeing that Reuven had been absent at the time of the sale and had previously expressed disapproval of the brothers’ treatment of Joseph, we would have to say that the tenth person was Joseph himself who was guilty of providing the brothers with cause to hate him to such a degree that they committed this crime against him. Seeing Joseph had been an inseparable part of the sin he also became part of the method of expiation. Another way of answering the problem of why the Romans chose ten martyrs [and why G’d allowed this, Ed.] is that certainly Joseph was not held responsible in such a fashion but that Reuven was. Reuven was punished in that way not because of his share in the sale of Joseph, something he had had no share in, but he had not been punished yet for his misdemeanour involving the couch of his stepmother Bilhah. We even have an allusion to this in Moses’ blessing for Reuven at the end of his life (Deut. 33:6) ויהי מתיו מספר, “may his population be included in the count,” the count being the ten martyrs who would absolve the ten brothers from their sin in the future.

ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, after Joseph had been sold. The fact that the Torah speaks of וירד, “he descended,” seems to imply that Dotan was situated at a much higher elevation than Adulam. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, the word וירד does not refer to a physical descent but to the brothers having demoted Yehudah from his role of their leader as they held him responsible for the debacle with Joseph. They had repented their part in the whole episode, and they accused Yehudah of not having been firm enough. Just as they had listened to him when he told them not to kill Joseph, they claimed that they would have listened to him if he had suggested that they should bring him back to their father. In Bereshit Rabbah 85,2 the whole paragraph commencing with וירד יהודה until the beginning of chapter 39 is considered as not relevant to the story, at least not at this point. Why then did the Torah insert this episode here thereby spoiling our concentration on what would happen to Joseph? According to Rabbi Eliezer the Torah wanted to create a conceptual link between one “descent,” and another “descent.” Rabbi Yochanan justifies the “interruption,” by linking one הכר נא “please identify!” to another הכר נא. Yehudah had deceived his father with these words, whereas Tamar reminded Yehudah that he had been deceived by her and that his assumption that she was a harlot who had become pregnant by her customer was totally unfounded.(compare 37,2 and 38,25 respectively)

ויט עד איש עדולמי, he pitched his tent and let his flock graze in the proximity of this town Adulam; eventually he struck up a friendship with the man חירם described in our verse.

ויהי בעת ההוא AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME — Why is this section placed here thus interrupting the section dealing with the history of Joseph? To teach that his brothers degraded him from his high position. When they saw their father’s grief they said, “You told us to sell him: if you had told us to send him back to his father we would also have obeyed you” (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

ויט AND HE TURNED away from his brothers.

עד איש עדלמי UNTO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE — he entered into a business-partnership with him.

In dieser Entfernung Judas von seinen Brüdern dürfen wir das Symptom einer Spannung oder Spaltung erkennen, die denn doch in Folge der an Josef verübten Tat unter den Brüdern entstanden, und sich am entschiedensten gegen Juda richtete, unter dessen, als des, wie es scheint, Einflußreichsten, Vorschlag und Leitung sich der traurige Vorgang vollzogen hatte. Schwer übrigens sehen wir das Unrecht in Judas eigenem Familienkreise gebüßt. Frau und Söhne starben, und was noch herber ist, die Söhne starben, weil sie vor Gottes Augen schlecht gewesen.

Wenn übrigens Judas Vergehen mit Tamar einerseits auch hier ein Moment offenbart, welches dem sittigenden Einfluss des künftigen Gottesgesetzes vorbehalten blieb, so sehen wir doch eben gleichzeitig auch ihn nur in einer Monogamie leben, sehen ihn zu dieser Abirrung nur nach dem Tode seiner Frau kommen, und sehen endlich bereits vor der Gesetzgebung eine Institution durch die Sitte in Jakobs Hause geheiligt, die durch und durch auf dem sittlichsten Begriffe der Ehe und des Familienlebens zu beruhen scheint.

Daß die Ehe ihren sittlichen Charakter nur in ihrem Endziel, der Erzeugung und Heranziehung der Kinder (פרו ורב) findet; daß eine Ehe, die dieses Ziel nicht erreicht, wesentlich in ihrem sittlichen Charakter getrübt erscheint; daß ferner der Begriff eines Familienkreises, d. i, eines Vaterhauses mit den ihm entstammenden Zweigen zusammen eine spezifische Individualität am Baume der Menschheit, eine charakteristisch einheitliche moralische Person dergestalt bilde, das alle in ihm und aus ihm entstehenden Häuser an dem Ausbau eines bestimmten Grundtypus menschlicher Geistigkeit und Gesittung gemeinschaftlich arbeiten, also, daß, wenn eine Ehe in eben diesem ihrem höchsten sittlichen Endzweck, dem Fortbau des Menschengeschlechtes in einer bestimmten durch die Familieneigentümlichkeit gegebenen Richtung, mit dem kinderlosen Tode eines Gliedes mangelhaft geblieben, dieser sittliche Charaktermangel der Ehe durch Fortsetzung derselben mit der hinterbliebenen Wittwe von einem der nächsten Familienglieder nachträglich ergänzt werden kann und soll: diese, den höchsten sittlichen Charakter der Ehe und die höchste sittliche Dignität der Familie aussprechenden Gedanken scheinen der großen Institution des Jibbum zu Grunde zu liegen, der wir schon hier, in dieser frühesten Zeit des Jakobshauses, in vollster Geltung begegnen. Obgleich Witwe des Verstorbenen, erscheint Thamar als die noch Angetraute des überlebenden Hauses (זיקה) und zwar in solcher Schärfe, daß ihr vermeintliches Vergehen (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 38: 24) als Ehebruch geahndet werden soll, in Beziehung zu einem nächsten Familiengliede aber so sehr das ursprünglich durch den Verstorbenen geknüpfte Eheband fortdauert, daß es zur Fortsetzung derselben keiner besonderen Anehelichung bedarf, sondern dieselbe sich einfach vollzieht: הבא על יבמתו בין בשוגג וכו׳ קנה Jebamot 43b; ein Verhältnis, das zur gerechten Würdigung Tamars nicht unberücksichtigt bleiben dürfte. — Ob übrigens die Wurzel יבם ihre Grundbedeutung in der Lautverwandtschaft mit קום (vergl. z. B. קול יבל — יין יון גפן, —) findet, und demgemäß יַבֵם der Grundbedeutung nach so viel als קַיֵם, aufrecht halten, aufrichten, wäre — הקם זרע לאחיו — wollen wir nur als eine Möglichkeit berühren.

ויהי בעת ההיא, והמדנים מכרו אותו, [the Torah contrasts the facts with the perception of the facts, i.e. Joseph was alive but the Midianites had sold him. I believe that this is why the author quotes the beginning of this verse without elaborating on it at all. He leaves it to our imagination to fill in this next item in the tragic chain of errors beginning with the fact that Yitzchok had shown more love for Esau. Ed.] at about the same time when Joseph was sold to Egypt at the suggestion of Yehudah who had proposed this instead of bringing him back to his father and had thereby bereaved his father, Yehudah reaped some of the fruit of his ill advised plans, in that the way was paved for him to be bereaved of two of his own sons in due course.

It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers. Based on chronological considerations, this incident took place shortly before the sale of Joseph. 18 Even after the brothers married and established families of their own, they continued to live in close proximity to one another and worked together. It is unclear whether each brother owned his own property, or if they were partners in a family business. In any case, Judah now left the presence of his brothers to establish his own private business. Judah reached Adulam, a city in the south of Judea, and he turned to an Adulamite man and befriended him, and his name was Hira.

ויהי בעת ההיא,,”It was at that time,” according to Rashi the reason why the Torah introduces this paragraph with these words is to tell us that Yehudah’s demotion from his position of leadership of the brothers and his moving away from them was because he had proposed the sale of Joseph to Egypt. Many commentators challenge Rashi’s commentary saying that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Joseph to Egypt to the eventual reunion of the family, seeing that Joseph was 17 when he was sold and 39 when the brothers and his father moved to Egypt. Seeing that only so few years had elapsed, how could Yehudah have married, sired 3 sons, married off two of them, and have married Tamar and become the father of Zerach and Peretz, and Peretz siring Chetzron and Chamul, all within such a short space of time? [seeing the last two grandsons of Yehudah are numbered among the seventy members of Yaakov’s familty who left Canaan for Egypt (46,12)? Ed] Ibn Ezra writes that what is related here occurred before the sale of Joseph, and that the story was interrupted in order to contrast the story of Yehudah and Tamar with that of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. [how Joseph could control his libido, whereas Yehudah could not.]

“About that time Judah left his brothers” [38:1]. The children of Jacob saw that Jacob had great anguish over Joseph. The children all hated Judah. They said to him: you were the chief and just as you said that we should not kill Joseph, but we should sell him, so too, if you had said that we should let Joseph go home to our father, we would have listened to you. Therefore, all the brothers hated Judah and denigrated him. Thus, Judah separated himself from them. (Rashi, Genesis, 38:1.)

[3] Another interpretation: "And Joseph went down to Egypt." (Genesis 39:1) It is said in scriptures: "He (God) has withdrawn you (Israel) from the land of the living." (Hosea 11:4) This refers to Joseph, as it is said, "There were certain men who were defiled by a human corpse." (Numbers 9:6) If not for the fact that Israel had to go down to Egypt due to Joseph's story, they would have been worthy of descending to Egypt in chains, just as they descended to Babylon, as it is said, "You should know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land not their own, and they will be enslaved and oppressed there." (Genesis 15:13) But because God loved them, He caused them to descend to Egypt in a pit and brought about the story of Joseph's sale so that they would descend of their own accord. Our sages say in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha that this was due to the coat of many colors that Jacob added to Joseph's clothing. His brothers were jealous of him and sold him to Egypt, and they also descended there after him, as it is said, "And Israel loved Joseph and made him a coat of many colors." (Genesis 37:3) The coat of many colors had an argaman (purple) stripe that reached the palm of his hand. Alternatively, it was the coat of many strips of parchment (shetarot) that his brothers wrote on concerning him, debating which type of death to kill him with. One said burning and one said killing, as it is said, "And they saw him from afar and plotted to kill him." (Genesis 37:18) The coat of many colors was stripped off of Joseph after they sold him, as it is said, "And they stripped Joseph of his coat, the coat of many colors that was on him." (Genesis 37:23) They debated amongst themselves who would take him and bring him to their father Jacob. Once they made their peace, Judah suggested that they sell him, and they sent him down to Egypt with his coat, as it is said, "And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father." (Genesis 37:32) Judah went and said to him [Joseph], "Please recognize [me], and let me know [who you are]." And [Joseph] said [to his brothers], etc. (Genesis 44:32-33) The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have spoken well to your father, [when you said] 'Please recognize [me],' for you also have [a lesson] to hear, as it says [about Tamar], 'And she said, 'Please recognize [this],' etc." (Genesis 38:25). And Judah recognized [Joseph], etc. (Genesis 44:33) Jacob said to him, "I know who did this to my son, a wild animal devoured him" (Genesis 37:33). "I know that you gave the advice," [said Jacob,] as it says, "And Judah said to his brothers, 'What profit is there...'" (Genesis 37:26), for no harm comes from a lion. And who is this Judah? As it says, "Judah is a lion's cub" (Genesis 49:9). "You have torn Joseph," [said Jacob,] "and ascended to the throne," as it says, "A lion's cub, Judah, you have risen" (Genesis 49:9). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Judah, "You have no children, and you do not know the pain of having children. You deceived [your father] and said, 'A wild animal devoured [Joseph].' Now you will know what the pain of having children is." And what is written after [Jacob's rebuke]? "And it was at that time that Judah went down [from his brothers]" (Genesis 38:1). And this also applies in the future, "A son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son" (Ezekiel 18:20).

Chapter (63) 64: Torah [1] "And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down" (Genesis 38:1). Like it is said in scriptures: "I will yet bring you, O inhabitants of Mareshah" (Micah 1:15). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "Even though I made a covenant with your father Abraham and told him to 'Arise, walk through the land' (Genesis 13:17), and I did what I promised him, and gave him all the land, as it is said, 'And the children came and possessed the land' (Nehemiah 9:24), and also 'I brought you into a land of fruitful fields' (Jeremiah 2:7), a land that is soft and full, yet you angered Me and came and defiled My land, etc." (Jeremiah 2:7). "What shall I do with you? Behold, I will bring the nations against you, and they shall drive you out of your land. I will yet bring you, O inhabitants of Mareshah" (Micah 1:15). This is because you did not listen to the words of Micah the Morashtite, who prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, King of Judah, etc. (Jeremiah 26:18). Therefore, this is what will be done to them: "The heir to Israel will come, and the glory of Israel will not be snuffed out" (Micah 5:1). When Israel went into exile, they were stripped and made to wear rags until they reached their destination. Their enemies stripped them of their clothing and left them naked, as it is written: "The glory of Israel will come to you forever" (Micah 4:5). A person's honor is in their clothing. If you don't believe this, consider what is written: "I will strip you of your clothes and leave you naked" (Ezekiel 23:26). They were ashamed to be seen naked, as it was embarrassing for one person to see the shame of another. Jeremiah also says: "All her splendor has departed" (Lamentations 1:6), which teaches us that they went out without clothing, and splendor is nothing but clothing, as it is written: "This is the generation that wears clothing" (Isaiah 33:1). Their officers were like deer (Lamentations 1:6). Just as these rams go one after the other, and each one's head is behind the back of his fellow, and he sees his own shame, so too did the Israelites see the shame of each and every one of them, but not their own shame, because they were stripped and in collars, until they arrived at eternity. Their enemies would strip them of their clothing and leave them naked, as it says, "until eternity the honor of Israel will come" (Micah 4:5). From the beginning, the tribe of Judah hinted to them that this is what would happen to them when they arrived at "World to come" [edit. actual word is 1. עדולם Adullam = "justice of the people. 2. a town of the Canaanites allotted to Judah and lying in the lowlands; site of the cave where David hid.]

“It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers and turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” (Genesis 38:1). “It was at that time; Judah descended from his brothers” – “Judah has betrayed, and an abomination has been performed…” (Malachi 2:11). [God] said to him: ‘You have denied, Judah; you have lied, Judah’ – “and an abomination has been performed in Israel” (Malachi 2:11). (Judah is portrayed as having denied and lied in that he betrayed his status as a member of Jacob’s household by marrying a Canaanite woman (Matnot Kehuna). This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Neḥemya (see Bereshit Rabba 84:21). ) ‘Judah has become profane’ – “for Judah has profaned the holy of the Lord that He loves” (Malachi 2:11). “It was at that time.” “I will yet bring to you a dispossessor, inhabitant of Maresha; [the glory of Israel] will come as far as Adulam” (Micah 1:15) – the King and Holy One of Israel. (God will come to Adulam to punish Israel (Yefe To’ar). ) [Alternatively,] should the glory of Israel have “come as far as Adulam”? (In this clause the midrash interprets “the glory of Israel” to refer to Judah himself. This sentence is to be read rhetorically; was it really fitting for Judah to come to Adulam and to marry a Canaanite woman? (see Yefe To’ar). ) “Come as far as Adulam” – as it is written: “And turned to an Adulamite man.” “It was at that time” – Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman began: “For I have known the thoughts” (Jeremiah 29:11) – the tribes were engaged in the sale of Joseph, Joseph was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Reuben was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Jacob was engaged in his sackcloth and his fasting, Judah was engaged in taking a wife for himself, and the Holy One blessed be He was engaged in creating the light of the messianic king: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers.” (Judah married the daughter of Shua, thereby establishing the family that would produce the Messiah. ) “Before she begins labor, she will give birth” (Isaiah 66:7) – before the first one who would enslave [Israel] was born, the ultimate redeemer was born. “It was at that time” – what is written prior to the matter? “The Medanites sold him to Egypt” (Genesis 37:36). (As the events that would lead to Israel’s enslavement in Egypt were just beginning to unfold, God was already planting the seeds of the ultimate redemption. )

“It was at that time” – the verse should have said only: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1). (This verse, describing the sale of Joseph to Potifar in Egypt, is the direct continuation of chapter 37, which concludes with Joseph being brought down to Egypt. This narrative is interrupted by the story of Judah in chapter 38. ) Why, then, did it juxtapose this portion to that one? Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yoḥanan: Rabbi Elazar said: In order to juxtapose descent to descent. (The story of Judah’s descent is embedded within the story of Joseph’s descent to imply that Judah lost stature among his brothers due to the sale of Joseph, when they saw how much pain it caused their father (Yefe To’ar). ) Rabbi Yoḥanan said: In order to juxtapose “identify” (Genesis 37:32) to “identify” (Genesis 38:25). (Because Judah was responsible for the sale of Joseph, in which the brothers asked Jacob to identify Joseph’s tunic, he experienced the embarrassment of having to admit his error when Tamar asked him to identify the possessions he had left with her (Etz Yosef). ) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose the incident of Tamar to the incident of Potifar’s wife. Just as this one, [Tamar, acted] for the sake of Heaven, so too, that one, [Potifar’s wife, acted] for the sake of Heaven, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: She saw through her astrology that she was destined to bring forth a child from him, but she did not know whether it would be from her or from her daughter. That is what is written: “[The astrologers, the stargazers,] who foretell by the new moons of that which will befall you” (Isaiah 47:13). Rabbi Aivu said: [They foretell] “of that which [will befall you]” but not all that [will befall you]. (They do not provide all the details.) Similarly, “[They were both naked, the man and his wife,] and they were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25), “the serpent was…cunning” (Genesis 3:1). The verse should have said only: “The Lord God made for Adam and for his wife [hide tunics, and clothed them]” (Genesis 3:21). (Why is the story of the serpent inserted in between the verse stating that Adam and Eve were naked and the verse stating that God clothed them? ) Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said: It is to inform you for what reason that wicked one [the serpent] accosted them; because it saw them engaged in conjugal relations, it lusted after them. Rabbi Yaakov of Kefar Ḥanin said: So as not to end with the portion of the serpent. (The verse regarding the hide tunics was placed after the incident of the serpent so as not to conclude a passage with God’s curses, given in the aftermath of the story of the serpent. ) Similarly, “[Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise, exalt, and glorify the King of heaven…] and He is able to humble those who walk in arrogance” (Daniel 4:34), “King Belshatzar” (Daniel 5:1) and “Darius the Mede” (Daniel 6:1). Where is Evil Merodakh? (The text proceeds from discussing Nebuchadnezzar to King Belshatzar and to Darius the Mede, while skipping Evil Merodakh, who reigned between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshatzar. ) Rabbi Elazar said: To juxtapose a wicked one to a wicked one, a tormentor to a tormentor, a conceited one to a conceited one. (Both Nebuchadnezzar and his grandson Belshatzar were wicked, tormentors, and conceited.) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: In order to juxtapose a reign that was truncated to a reign that was truncated. Similarly, “During that night, Belshatzar the Chaldean king was killed” (Daniel 5:30), “and Darius the Mede [received the kingdom]” (Daniel 6:1). Where is [the chapter beginning:] “In the third year of the reign of King Belshatzar” (Daniel 8:1)? (Why does this chapter, which is set during the reign of Belshatzar, not precede the transition in the text to the reign of Darius? ) Rav Huna said: So that they will not say that this is mere literature; so that everyone will know that he said it through the divine spirit. (At times, works composed with the divine spirit arrange events out of chronological order for esoteric reasons (Maharzu). ) The Rabbis say: In order to indicate regarding the whole book that it was stated through the divine spirit. Here too, it should have said: “Joseph was taken down to Egypt” (Genesis 39:1), but it is written: “Judah descended from his brothers.” [Judah] said [to his brothers]: (This is an additional insight into the phrase “Judah descended from his brothers” (Yefe To’ar). ) ‘Let us disperse ourselves, for so long as we are together, the promissory note is liable to be collected.’ (Since we sinned together in the sale of Joseph, it would be fitting for the punishment to occur when we are all together (Etz Yosef). Alternatively, the promissory note refers to the prophecy to Abraham that his descendants would be oppressed in a foreign land. Judah sensed that the departure of Joseph might eventually lead to their all descending to exile. That would be more likely to occur if they were all together (Yefe To’ar). ) The Holy One blessed be He said to them: If ten people were implicated for robbery, can one not be apprehended for the act of them all? (I can punish each of you separately, or I can punish even just one of you for the entire episode. ) When they were implicated regarding the goblet, they said: “God has found [matza] the iniquity of your servants” (Genesis 44:16). Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The creditor has found the opportunity to collect on his promissory note. Rabbi Levi said: Like this one who empties [mematze] the barrel and leaves it with only its dregs. (God is punishing us for the sin in its entirety, to the last drop. ) The Rabbis say: (The Rabbis say another reason for the juxtaposition of the story of Judah descending from his brothers and marrying, to the story of the sale of Joseph. ) [Judah said:] ‘Come and let us provide for ourselves. In the past, he [Jacob] would have felt obligated to arrange for us to marry wives, but now he is preoccupied with his sackcloth and fasting. It is not right that he should engage in [arranging for us to marry wives.’ They said to Judah: ‘Are you not the leader of us all? You arise and provide for yourself.’ Immediately, “Judah descended” – it is a descent for him that he married a gentile woman. It is a descent for him that he buried his wife and his sons.

Rabbi Yehuda bar Simon and Rabbi Ḥanin in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, buries his wife and his children. From whom do you derive this? It is from Judah. “Judah said to his brothers: What profit is it [if we kill our brother and conceal his blood?]” (Genesis 37:26). He should have borne him on his shoulder to his father. What did it cause for him? He buried his wife and his children. Rav Huna in the name of Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: Anyone who begins a mitzva and does not complete it, but another comes and completes it, it is attributed to the second one. That is what is written: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up” (Joshua 24:32). Did Moses not take them up, as it is stated: “Moses took Joseph’s bones with him” (Exodus 13:19)? But since it was decreed upon him that he would not enter the land, and these [the children of Israel] tended to them, it is therefore attributed to them. “Joseph’s bones…” (Joshua 24:32) – they analogize it; to what is the matter comparable? To robbers who entered a certain wine cellar. They took a particular jug and drank. The owner of the cellar peered at them. He said to them: ‘May it be pleasant for you, may it be enjoyable for you, may it be sweet for you. You drank the wine, restore the jug to its place.’ So, the Holy One blessed be He said to the tribes: ‘You sold Joseph. Restore his bones to their place.’ Another matter: Joseph said to them: ‘To the place from which you abducted me, return me’ – “are your brothers not herding in Shekhem?” (Genesis 37:13). (This proves that the sale of Joseph took place in or around Shekhem. ) That is what the children of Israel did: “Joseph’s bones, which the children of Israel took up from Egypt, they buried in Shekhem” (Joshua 24:32).

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

(I Kin. 11, 29) And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem, etc. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: At that time, refers to the time designated for evil dispensation (Gen. 38, 1) At that time when Juda went down; R. Jose says: "A time designated for evil." (Jer. 51, 18) In the time of their visitation shall they perish. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for evil dispensation. (Isa. 49, 8) In the time of favor have I answered thee. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for Divine goodness. (Ex. 32, 34) Nevertheless in the day when I visit, I will visit their sins upon them. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: A time designated for evil dispensation. (I Kin. 12, 1) And Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king. It was taught in the name of R. Jose: That place was designated for trouble. In Shechem Dina was assaulted; in the same place Joseph was sold by his brothers, and in the same place the kingdom of David was divided. And (Ib. 11, 29) And it came to pass at that time when Jeroboam went out of Jerusalem. R. Chana b. Papa said: "It means he went out of the destiny of Jerusalem (i.e., was to have no share in the welfare of Jerusalem)." (Ib., ib. 7) That the Shilonite, the prophet Achiyah, found him in the way; how Achiyah had clad himself with a new garment, what does it mean? R. Nachman said: "As a new garment has no spots so also was the teaching of Jeroboam clean, without any error." According to others: "They renewed things which no ear has ever heard of." And what is meant by, And they two were alone in the field? R. Juda said in the name of Rab: "All other scholars were like the plants of the field in comparison with them." According to others: "All the reasons for the commandment of the Torah were revealed to them as a field." (Mic. 1, 14) Therefore shalt thou give a parting gift to Moreshethgath; the houses of Achzib shall be a deceitful thing unto the kings of Israel. R. Chanina b. Papa said: "A heavenly voice was heard saying: 'To him who has killed Goliath, the Philistine, and inherited to you the city of Gath, should ye send away his descendants? Therefore the house of Achzib shall be a deceitful thing unto the kings of Israel.'"

"Who is greater than Joseph, who in return was attended by no one else than Moses." Our Rabbis were taught: "Come, see how beloved meritorious deeds were to our teacher Moses; for, while all Israel was busy with the spoils of Egypt, he occupied himself with meritorious deeds, as it is said (Pr. 10, 8) The wise in heart will accept commandments; but, he that is a fool in his speaking will stumble. But how did Moses know where Joseph was buried? It was said that Serach, the daughter of Asher, was of the previous generation and to her Moses went and asked whether she knew where Joseph was buried, and she said: "An iron casket was made by the Egyptians wherein he was placed and sunk in the River Nile, so that the water of the Nile should be blessed through him." Thereupon Moses went and stationed himself on the brink of the Nile and said: "Joseph the time which the Holy One, praised be He, gave an oath to redeem Israel has expired; the oath with which thou hast adjured Israel is now to be fulfilled. If thou wilt reveal thyself, well, but if not, then we shall be free from the obligation of thy oath." Immediately did the casket of Joseph float the water, and be not surprised that iron floats on the water, for so also do we find in the passage (II Kings 6, 5) But as one was felling a beam, the axe had fallen into the water; and he cried and said, 'Alas, my Lord, it was also borrowed, etc., and cast it in there and made the iron to swim. Is this not a fortiori? If for Ellisha who was only the disciple of Elijah and Elijah who was the disciple of Moses could cause iron to float on water, how much more easily could Moses himself do so? R. Nathan said: "Joseph was buried in the royal cemetery, Moses thereupon went and stationed himself on the royal cemetery and said: 'Joseph the time at which the Holy One, praised be He, gave this oath to redeem Israel has expired; and the oath which thou hast besworn Israel must now be fulfilled. If thou wilst. reveal thyself, well, but if not then we shall be free from the obligation of thy oath." At that moment the casket of Joseph began to tremble, whereupon Moses [having revealed his place] took it and brought it to him, and during all the years that Israel was in wilderness the ark of Joseph was carried side by side with the ark of the Shechina. This caused all passersby to ask, "What is the reason for these two arks?" And when they were told that one contained a dead body and the other the Shechina. The inquirers would ask, "How is it that a dead body is to be placed near the ark of the Shechina?" Whereupon they were told: (Ib. b) "This is because the one who lies in the ark has fulfilled everything that is written in the Torah, which is placed in the other ark." Is it possible that Joseph's body was left to the charge of Moses and the entire people of Israel did not attend it? Behold it is written (Josh. 24, 32) And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel have brought up out of Egypt, they buried in Shechem, and again granted that Israel would not have attended it, is it possible that his children would not have attended it? Behold, it is written in the same passage, And it remained inheritance of the children of Joseph. His children said: "Let us leave our Father to be attended by the entire people of Israel, for it will be a greater honor for him to be attended by a multitude of people." And again Israel said: "Let us leave it attended by Moses for it would be a greater honor than to be attended by inferior men." (Ib., ib., ib.) They buried in Shechecm. Why in Shechem? They said: "From Shechem was he (Joseph) stolen, (See Gen. 37, 14-29) and let us bring back the loss to Shechem." But the passages contradict each other, it is written (Gen. 13, 19) And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had caused the children of Israel to swear, etc., and in the previous passage it is written. And the bones of Joseph which the children of Israel had brought out of Egypt, they buried in Shechem. Said R. Chama b. R. Chanina: "Whoever starts a thing and does not complete it, and another comes and finishes it. Scripture considers the one who finished it as having performed the entire task." R. Elazar says: "Such a man [who begins a thing and does not finish] is even removed from his high position, as it is written (Gen. 38, 1) And it came to pass at that time that Juda went down from his brothers." R. Samuel b. Nachmeni said: "Such a man will bury even his wife and children, as it is said (Ib., ib., 12) And the daughter of Shuah. Juda's wife, died and again it is written there, And Er and Onan both died."

Because R. Elazar does not elaborate the meaning of the connection he has raised, we need to re-examine the relevant verses to determine the significance of the parallel being drawn. (This is yet another example of techniques used by Hazal to engage the reader in interaction with their commentary and with the biblical text.) Yehuda’s descent is described in Genesis 38:1: “And it was at that time, and Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers” (…vayered Yehuda me’et ehav). Yosef’s descent appears in Genesis 39:1: “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (veYosef hurad Mitzraima).

In lines 46–48, the midrash returns to the verses with which it began (We should note that in bringing us back to the verses they began explicating, the midrashic editors in effect bring us back to the first midrashic commentary on the link between the two stories, i.e., R. Elazar’s statement that the stories are juxtaposed to connect the two descents.) : “And Yosef was brought down to Egypt…” (Genesis 39:1) and “And Yehuda went down from [being with] his brothers…” (Genesis 38:1). (The order of the verses is reversed here, with the verse from Genesis 39 preceding the one from Genesis 38. Perhaps this is yet another subtle reminder that sequential ordering is not always the most important way to connect events.) The remainder of the midrash then presents two more perspectives on the connection between these verses.

The interpretive problem is obvious. Why is the Yosef strand of the narrative, surely the dominant one, interrupted at this critical juncture by an apparently unrelated story? When, in fact, does the Yehuda/Tamar episode take place in relation to the Yosef story? Bearing in mind that both stories unfold over a period of years, what is meant by the phrase, “And it was at that time…” (Genesis 38:1)? Does Yehuda marry immediately after his role in the selling of Yosef or does this story begin at some earlier point in Yehuda’s life, as some of the commentators contend? (See, for example, ibn Ezra on this verse.) Even if the story of Yehuda’s marriage takes place immediately after the brothers’ selling of Yosef, (Rashi and Sforno, among other commentators, take this position.) why is the Yosef strand of the narrative interrupted so abruptly by this episode, when it might just as easily have been placed at a more natural break in the story?

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] This text is related (to Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS. < The matter > is comparable to a king of flesh and blood when he sits down to judge someone. The judge says to him: Say whether you have killed or not killed. If he says to him: I killed, the judge kills him; but if he does not confess, he does not kill him. However, the Holy One is not like this. Over the one who confesses the Holy One has mercy, as stated (in Prov. 28:13): BUT WHOEVER CONFESSES AND FORSAKES < HIS TRANSGRESSIONS > SHALL OBTAIN MERCY. R. Simeon ben Halafta says: The Holy One said to Jerusalem: For what reason have I brought all these judgments upon you? Because you said: I have not sinned, as stated (in Jer. 2:35): BEHOLD, I AM BRINGING YOU TO JUDGMENT FOR SAYING: I HAVE NOT SINNED. However (according to Prov. 28:13): BUT WHOEVER CONFESSES AND FORSAKES < HIS TRANSGRESSIONS > SHALL OBTAIN MERCY. Ergo (in Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT < YOUR THOUGHTS, AND YOUR WAYS ARE NOT MY WAYS >. R. Jose ben Qetsartah said: Flesh and blood makes a path on the mountain or in the valley. Could one possibly make < a path > in the waters? It is written of the Holy One, however, (in Ps. 77:20 [19]): YOUR WAY WAS IN THE SEA, [AND YOUR PATH IN THE GREAT WATERS]. He makes his way wherever he wants.

Another interpretation (of Is. 55:8): FOR MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT < YOUR THOUGHTS >. In the case of Joseph, his brothers sold him to the Midianites, and the Midianites sold him unto the Egyptians. Before Joseph went away, Judah went away to prepare for the final redeemer, i.e., the Messianic King, (I.e., through a marriage out of which would come the Messianic King. See Gen. R. 85:1.) [for out of him would the Messianic King come forth]. "That Judah went" is not written here, but THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. R. Johanan said: The one going away depends upon the other. The going away of Judah depends upon the going away of Joseph. (Gen. R. 85:2.) (Gen. 39:1:) WHEN JOSEPH WAS TAKEN AWAY TO EGYPT < corresponds to > (Gen. 38:1) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. Similarly you say on the matter (in Dan. 5:30): IN THAT VERY NIGHT WAS BELSHAZZAR THE CHALDEAN KING SLAIN. What is written next (in Dan. 6:1 [5:31])? AND DARIUS THE MEDE RECEIVED THE KINGDOM. The one destroyer depends upon the other, the destroyer of a house upon the destroyer of a house, the cessation of a kingdom upon the cessation of a kingdom.

(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (literally: WENT DOWN). What is the meaning of WENT DOWN? That they brought him down from his greatness. Why? Because they had appointed him king over themselves. When they had sold Joseph, they came to their father to comfort him, [but] he did [not] wish to be comforted. They said: Now the old man was upset with us. What did they do. They arose and banished him (i.e., Judah), as stated (in Gen. 38:1) THAT JUDAH WENT DOWN.

Another interpretation (of Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY. As soon as they had sold Joseph (in Gen. 37:28), what is written (in vs. 29)? WHEN REUBEN RETURNED UNTO THE PIT < … > when he did not find him, HE RENT HIS CLOTHES. In addition they all arose and dispersed, and Judah also dispersed with them. [Ergo] (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] What is written above on the matter (in Gen. 37:14)? PLEASE GO AND SEE [ABOUT YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK]. Would the flock know what WELFARE was when he told him < to see about > THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK? (“What is your welfare” corresponds to the English greeting “How do you do.” How could animals respond to such a greeting?) R. Ayyevu said: A person must pray for whoever is beneficial to him. (The Buber text, which reads “shatters him,” makes little sense. The emendation adopted here is slight. It has been accepted by Jastrow, in his lexicon under SKR, and suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), vol. 1, appendix, p. 74, n. 2. See Gen. R. 84:13.) Because Jacob was benefiting from his flock by consuming the milk and wearing the shorn wool, for that reason he had to ask about their welfare. It is therefore stated (in Gen. 37:14): YOUR BROTHERS' WELFARE AND THE WELFARE OF THE FLOCK. (Ibid., cont,:) AND BRING BACK WORD TO ME. They said (in vs. 33): JOSEPH HAS BEEN TORN TO BITS. (According to the biblical context, these words were spoken by Jacob.)

(Gen. 37:28:) WHEN MIDIANITE < TRADERS > PASSED BY, < THEY PULLED AND RAISED JOSEPH FROM THE PIT, THEN SOLD JOSEPH FOR TWENTY PIECES OF SILVER TO THE ISHMAELITES >. And they (the Midianites in vs. 36) SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT TO POTIPHAR…. Three bills of sale (Gk.: onai, i.e., “purchases” or “contracts for tax farming.”) were made over him. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:22 for other totals.) When he was sold, they all began to cry: Woe (Way). Thus it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): NOW IT CAME TO PASS (wayehi) AT THAT TIME. (Ibid., cont.:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY (rt.: YRD). For what sin did he go away? (Gen. R. 85:3.) R. Hiyya bar Abba < said > in the name of R. Johanan: Everyone who begins with a good deed and does not finish it causes himself to bury his wife and children and causes a lowering of status (rt.: YRD) for himself. Who was this? This was Judah, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 38:1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.

[(Gen. 38:1, cont.:) < THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE > WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH.] R. Judah bar Simon said: That Hirah from the days of Judah is Hiram from the days of Solomon; (Cf. Gen. R. 85:4.) and throughout his days he loved this tribe, for so it says (in Gen. 38:12): HIS FRIEND HIRAH THE ADULLAMITE. And it says elsewhere (in I Kings 5:15 [1]): < THEN HIRAM KING OF TYRE SENT HIS SERVANTS UNTO SOLOMON > … FOR HIRAM HAD ALWAYS BEEN A FRIEND TO DAVID.

(Gen. 38:1:) NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. Let our master instruct us: If a ruin falls on the Sabbath, and it is not known whether Israelites are there or not, is it legitimate to clear away < the rubble > over them on the Sabbath? Thus have our masters taught (in Yoma 8:7): IF A FALLING STRUCTURE FALLS ON SOMEONE [ON THE SABBATH], AND THERE IS DOUBT WHETHER HE IS THERE OR NOT THERE, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS ALIVE OR DEAD, DOUBT WHETHER HE IS A FOREIGNER OR AN ISRAELITE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY [THE RUBBLE] FOR HIS SAKE. IF THEY FIND HIM ALIVE, THEY SHALL CLEAR AWAY < THE REST OF THE RUBBLE > FOR HIS SAKE; BUT, IF HE IS DEAD, THEY SHALL LEAVE HIM. (The Mishnah text here (without Buber’s bracketed emendations) is that found in the Yerushalmi.) It is written concerning the Sabbath (in Exod. 31:14): WHOEVER PROFANES IT (the Sabbath) SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH; yet our masters have taught: they shall clear away [the rubble] over one who is alive on the Sabbath. R. Eleazar ben Azariah said: If circumcision, which < affects > only one of two hundred and forty-eight < human > organs, overrides the Sabbath, how much the more would two hundred and forty-eight organs under stone override the Sabbath for someone? (Shab. 132a; Yoma 85b; Mekhilta de Rabbi Ishmael, Shabbata 1.) R. Simeon ben Menasya says: Defile one Sabbath for him so that he may keep a lot of Sabbaths. So, if you clear away < the rubble > over someone to restore a single soul to life, I will also do for you what is written (in Ezek. 37:12): < THUS SAYS THE LORD GOD > BEHOLD, I WILL OPEN YOUR GRAVES < AND RAISE YOU UP OUT FROM YOUR GRAVES, O MY PEOPLE, AND BRING YOU UNTO THE LAND OF ISRAEL >. A certain heretic (min) asked our Rabbi: Is it possible for the dead to live again? Your ancestors do not acknowledge < the belief >, yet you do acknowledge < it >! What is written about Jacob (in Gen. 37:35)? THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE TO COMFORT HIM [BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED]. If he had known that the dead would live < again >, would he have refused to be comforted and said (ibid., cont.): NO I WILL GO DOWN MOURNING UNTO MY SON IN SHEOL? Our Rabbi said to him: You are the biggest fool in the world. < It was > because our father Jacob knew through the Holy Spirit that Joseph was alive. For that reason he did not accept consolation over him. After all, one does not accept consolation over one who is alive. (Cf. Gen. R. 84:6; see Soferim 21 (43b).)

Another interpretation (of Gen. 37:35): BUT HE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED. It is simply that our father Jacob said: See, the tribal covenant has been broken! How I have toiled to raise up twelve tribes. Now I see that, since Joseph has gone, behold the very covenant has ceased. All the works of the Holy One correspond to twelve tribes: twelve constellations, twelve months, twelve hours in the day, twelve hours in the night, twelve stones which Aaron wore < on his breastplate >. But now Joseph has gone! Behold, the tribal covenant has been broken. But did Jacob not know how to take a wife and sire a son so that there would be twelve tribes? < He did not do so > simply because he had kept a vow to Laban, as stated (in Gen. 31:50): IF YOU MISTREAT MY DAUGHTERS OR TAKE WIVES BESIDES MY DAUGHTERS, even after their death < …. > What did Laban do? He brought him outside. He said to him (ibid., cont.): THOUGH NO ONE IS WITH US, SEE, GOD IS A WITNESS…. Because of that vow, he was unable to take a wife. When his sons saw that he was complaining so and that he would not accept consolation, they went to Judah and said to him: You have made all this great misfortune for us! He said to them: I said to you (in Gen. 37:26): WHAT PROFIT < IS THERE IF WE KILL OUR BROTHER AND CONCEAL HIS BLOOD >? Now are you saying: What have you done? They said to him: But did we not hearken to you < when > you said (Gen. 37:27): COME, AND LET US SELL HIM TO THE ISHMAELITES? So we hearkened to you. If you had said: Come, and let us return him to his father, should we not have hearkened to you? In that hour, therefore, they arose and expelled him. How is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Gen. 38:1): JUDAH WENT AWAY.

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.] This text is related (to Mal. 2:11): JUDAH HAS BEEN FAITHLESS, AND AN ABOMINATION HAS BEEN DONE IN ISRAEL. (Gen. R. 85:1.) What is the meaning of JUDAH HAS BEEN FAITHLESS? Judah had been deceitful. < It is > just as you say (in Mal. 2:14): < FOR THE LORD IS A WITNESS BETWEEN YOU (Judah) AND THE WIFE OF YOUR YOUTH >, WITH WHOM YOU HAVE BEEN FAITHLESS. Thus it says: Judah was deceitful. Over what was he deceitful? (Mal. 2:11, cont.:) FOR JUDAH HAS PROFANED THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD. See (ibid., cont.): HE HAS MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF A FOREIGN GOD. Now it says elsewhere (in Ps. 114:2): JUDAH WAS HIS SANCTUARY, while it says here (in Mal. 2:11): FOR JUDAH HAS PROFANED < THE SANCTUARY OF THE LORD >. See (ibid., cont.): HE HAS MARRIED THE DAUGHTER OF A FOREIGN GOD.

(Gen. 37:35, cont.:) SO HIS FATHER WEPT FOR HIM. What is written next (in vs. 36)? BUT THE MIDIANITES SOLD HIM INTO EGYPT. The Holy One said to Judah: You have no children; therefore you do not know what the pain of children is. Now you have deceived your father and told him: Your son is dead. By your life, when you take a wife you shall bury your sons in order that you may know the pain of children. What is written next (in Gen. 38:1-10): NOW IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME THAT < JUDAH >…. (The verses continue with the story of Judah's marriage to Shua, the birth of three sons, and the death of two of them.) It is also written (in Gen. 46:12): < AND THE SONS OF JUDAH: ER, ONAN, SHELAH, PEREZ, AND ZERAH >; BUT ER AND ONAN HAD DIED < IN THE LAND OF CANAAN >. Now all those years that Joseph had been away from his father, Jacob's mind had been against Judah. (Tanh., Gen. 11:9, specifically states in the parallel account, “It was in Jacob’s heart that Judah had killed him.” See also above.) From where do you learn that? From Benjamin, about whom Judah said to Joseph (in Gen. 44:32): FOR YOUR SERVANT HAS BECOME SURETY FOR THE LAD. Then, as soon as he had set his mind on Benjamin and Joseph had made himself known, Judah was found to be innocent, as stated (in Is. 11:13): THEN EPHRAIM'S JEALOUSY SHALL DEPART, < AND THOSE WHO HARASS JUDAH SHALL BE CUT OFF >…. Therefore (in Gen. 46:28): NOW HE HAD SENT JUDAH AHEAD OF HIM UNTO JOSEPH.

Go, get thee down (Exod. 32:7). The sages said: Moses was actually excommunicated by the heavenly court at that time. Here it is said: Get thee down (red) as a rebuke, for the people had dealt corruptly, and elsewhere it is said: And Judah went down (vayered) from his brethren (Gen. 38:1). What is written preceding that? And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him (ibid. 37:35). But when he remained uncomforted they arose and excommunicated Judah. They said: “When you told us: ‘Come and let us sell him,’ we listened to you, but if you had told us: ‘Come, let us take him back,’ we would have listened to you. You are responsible for our father’s grief.” That is why they excommunicated him. Hence the word red (“get thee down”) implies excommunication.

Another matter: “Go descend” – Rabbi Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman: Moses was ostracized and rebuked. (He was distanced from God and sent down from the mountain, like one who is sent away in shame from a human court. ) “Descend” is nothing other than ostracism. From where do you derive this? When Joseph’s brothers sold him and they went to console their father, he was not consoled. They said: (The brothers said to each other. ) It was Judah who did all these things to us, for had he not sought it, we would not have sold him. Just as he said to us: ‘Do not kill him,’ and we heeded him, had he said: ‘Do not sell him,’ we would have heeded him. Instead, he said to us: “Come and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:27). They stood and ostracized him, as it is stated: “It was at that time, Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It should have said only: “Judah went”; he was in descent from his brothers. (The reason it states “Judah descended” is to indicate that he did not merely leave. His brothers stripped him of his elevated status and ostracized him. ) Just as “descended [vayered]” that is stated there connotes ostracism, so too, “descend [red]” that is written here connotes ostracism. This is analogous to a province that sent an emissary to crown the king. Before he arrived, the residents of the province overturned the idols and stoned the images [of the king]. The prominent leaders of the province wrote to the king. (They informed him of what had occurred. ) The missives entered before the emissary entered to crown the king. The king said to him… (The text of the midrash does not include the end of the sentence, but the point is that the king turned back the emissary and informed him that he would not be seen due to the disloyal conduct of the residents of his province. ) “Your people…have acted corruptly” – were they Moses’s people? Rather, that is what the verse said: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me; plunder upon them, as they rebelled against Me. I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me” (Hosea 7:13). They were separating themselves from Me, as it is stated: “Woe to them, as they have wandered from Me.” Is there a person who exchanges a good item for a bad item? A person before whom they place gems and coal, would he forsake the gems and take the coal? But they forsake the living of the world (The true, living God, who gives life to the entire world. ) and opt for the dead, as it is stated: “They have eyes, but do not see” (Psalms 115:5). (In worshipping the golden calf, the people chose an inanimate object over God. ) “Plunder upon them” – calamity is destined to befall them. “But they have spoken lies about Me” – what lies did they speak about the Holy One blessed be He? Rabbi Akiva expounded: They said: Was He engaged with us? It was with Himself that He was engaged. He redeemed Himself; He did not redeem us, as it is stated: “Nations and their gods from before Your people, whom You have redeemed for Yourself from Egypt” (II Samuel 7:23). The Rabbis say: “This is your god [that took you out of Egypt]” (Nehemiah 9:18) – it redeemed us. Rabbi Ḥagai ben Elazar says: It is not written here, “this is your god,” but rather, “these are your gods” (Exodus 32:4) – they included Him with them and said: God and the calf redeemed us. They lie about Me; [thus,] “I would redeem them, but they have spoken lies about Me.” I, too, say that they are not My people. That is why it is stated: “For your people…have acted corruptly.”

Bereshit Rabbah 85, 1, commenting on Genesis 38, 1, the episode introducing Yehudah's marriage, etc., quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman who interprets Jeremiah 29,11 in which G–d is on record that all His intentions are for the good of the Jewish people, even though it may not always appear thus to us. G–d also stresses that He is fully aware of our thoughts. The sale of Joseph is an example of how what appear to be plans and actions contrary to G–d's intentions are nonetheless furthering His plans. The brothers were concerned only with ridding themselves of Joseph and the danger they thought he represented to them. Joseph and Reuben, as well as Jacob, were each mourning their part in the fate that had befallen the other; Yehudah was busy choosing a wife. G–d, on the other hand, was busy paving the way for the eventual arrival of the Messiah.

ויוסף הורד מצרימה, “meanwhile Joseph had been transported toward Egypt;” before the first Israelite became enslaved the eventual redeemer had been born. Peretz who was destined to become the ancestor of the Mashiach was born, and only after that does the Torah report about Joseph becoming a slave in Egypt. [Joseph clearly had been brought to Egypt about 21 years earlier, as we demonstrated in our commentary on Genesis 38,1. Ed.] Joseph was the first Israelite to become enslaved.

אלה תולדות יעקב, “the following describes events and problems which Yaakov encountered in his life.” [by the way, Seforno, who lived hundreds of years later than Rash’bam, also accepts the interpretation described as nonsensical by Rash’bam. Ed.] This exegesis is nonsense. Whenever the expression תולדות occurs in the Bible, sometimes this word introduces the names of the grandsons of the party referred to, such as in Genesis 6,9 where the Torah after describing the righteousness of Noach tells us that Noach had three sons and proceeds to give us their names. The names of the sons could not be the purpose of the story there, as we had been told earlier in 5,32 that Noach at the age of 500 sired three sons and we were already told their names. The Torah then continues to describe mankind’s ongoing corruption and that Noach was the only one with whom G’d was pleased. When the Torah commences a second time with the line אלה תולדות נח in 6,9, clearly the Torah does not mean to repeat itself, but it leads to the Torah telling us of Noach’s grandchildren, something that is reported in greater detail in 10,1 under the heading of “and these are the generations of the sons of Noach.” [Perhaps the reason for the repetition of אלה תולדות בני נח in chapter 10, is that if, as the author says, the grandchildren were meant already in chapter 6, now after the deluge, the task of these children to generate a new mankind began in earnest, whereas up to that point they were charged with merely surviving the deluge. Ed.] Just as the Torah reported the growth and development of mankind after the deluge until we have a total of 70 such descendants of Noach being named, so in chapter 36,6 we have been told of the descendants of Esau who have been born in the land of Canaan, i.e. the land in which his father lived. After that, the Torah reported Esau’s further development in Mount Seir, commencing with verse 9 of that chapter. The Torah reports the development of Yaakov’s family in a parallel manner, 35,23 extending through verses 26-27 and listing all his children who had been born in exile, while he was in Padan Aram with Lavan. Now the Torah continues with the words אלה תולדות יעקב, concentrating forthwith on the grandchildren who combine to make up a total of 70 prior to the descent of the family to Egypt. Details of the birth of these various grandchildren are being provided, beginning with the chronicle of what happened to Joseph, who at 17 years of age experienced traumatic events, as a result of which his older brother Yehudah separated from the other brothers and started his own family in Keziv and Adulam, siring three sons, and grandsons respectively, i.e. Shelah, Peretz and Zerach. The history of Yaakov’s family became complicated further with Joseph having been brought to Egypt as a slave where Menashe and Ephrayim were born for him. Having attained high office, Joseph invited his father and family to join him in Egypt so that ultimately 70 members of Yaakov’s family wound up in Egypt. Moses had to record all this in order to substantiate his claim in Deuteronomy 10,22 that “your fathers descended to Egypt when they numbered only 70 persons.”

ויוסף הורד AND JOSEPH WAS BROUGHT DOWN — It (Scripture) now reverts to the original subject (and consequently it states ויוסף הורד “Joseph had been brought down to Egypt” before the events last mentioned); it interrupted it only in order to connect the account of the degradation of Judah (Genesis 38:1) with that of the sale of Joseph, thus suggesting that it was on account of him (i.e. Joseph — Judah’s part in the sale of Joseph — ) that they (his brothers) degraded him from his high position. A further reason why this narrative of Judah and Tamar is interpolated here is to place in juxtaposition the story of Potiphar’s wife and the story of Tamar, suggesting that just as this woman (Tamar) acted out of pure motives so also the other (Potiphar’s wife) acted out of pure motives, for she foresaw by her astrological speculations that she was destined to be the ancestress of children by him (Joseph) — but she did not know whether these children were to be hers or her daughter’s (Genesis Rabbah 85:2).

Yet in the disastrous aftermath of their father’s unending grief, the brothers turned on Judah, attacking him for poor leadership. After the sale of Joseph, we are told: “About that time, Judah went down from his brothers… ” (Genesis 38:1). Rashi explains: “He was brought down in their esteem.”

The midrash elaborates: Upon seeing Jacob’s sorrow, the brothers were filled with remorse, and blamed Judah for the whole affair. Judah defended himself, reminding them that he had counseled against killing Joseph; it was thanks in part to him that Joseph’s life was spared! But they retorted: “Had you told us to restore him to our father we would have done so – we follow your lead!” (Rashi, Genesis 38:1, based on Tan. B. VaYeshev 8; BR 85:3; DR 7:4. Philo commented explicitly that Judah was the leader of his brothers (De Josepho 32).)

The verse states: “At the time of their punishment, they shall perish” (Jeremiah 51:18). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “at the time” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity. The verse states: “In an acceptable time have I answered you” (Isaiah 49:8). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “in an acceptable time” indicates that it is a time ordained for good. The verse states: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them” (Exodus 32:34). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “on the day when I punish” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity. The verse states: “And it came to pass at that time, and Judah descended from his brothers” (Genesis 38:1). It was taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: The phrase “at that time” indicates that it is a time ordained for calamity.

Rabbi Elazar says with regard to one who initiates performance of a mitzva but does not complete it when capable of doing so: He is also demoted [moridin] from his position of greatness, as it is written: “And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down [vayyered] from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah” (Genesis 38:1). Usage of the term “went down” indicates that the rest of Judah’s brothers had demoted him from his position of greatness because he began the process of saving Joseph, but he did not complete it.

David departed from there and escaped to the cave (The “cave” in v. 1 is referred to as “stronghold” in vv. 4–5; cf. the same variation in 2 Sam. 23.13–14; 1 Chron. 11.15–16.) of Adullam; and when his brothers and all his father’s house heard, they joined him down there.

And it was at that time, that Yehudah descended from his brothers. He turned away [from them], until [he came to] a man, an Adullamite, whose name was Chirah.

It was at that time that Jehuda had gone down from his property, and separated himself from his brethren, and had inclined to a man an Adullemite whose name was Hira,

בת שוע, איש כנעני, “Bat Shua, daughter of a merchant. She was not a Canaanite, as the sons of Yaakov would not marry women of this nation.

A CERTAIN CANAANITE. Some say that kena’ani (Canaanite) means a merchant, (The commentators were bothered by Judah marrying a Canaanite woman. Hence their interpretation.) as in As for the trafficker (kena’an), the balances of deceit are in his hand (Hos. 12:8) and in, and in that day there shall be no more a trafficker (kena’ani) in the house of the Lord of Hosts (Zech. 14:21), wherein the word trafficker is spelled with a yod as in our verse. However, it is possible that the word kena’ani is to be taken literally. (It means a Canaanite.) Our sages said, that Judah went down (v. 1) means that Judah was demoted from his leadership. (He thus went down from his exalted position. Cf. Soteh 13b.) However, this is a Midrashic interpretation. The Bible says that Judah went down because whoever goes from north to south is going down. (North is above south. I.E. was of the opinion that Jacob and his family dwelt north of Adullam (Weiser).) Those acquainted with science will understand that what I say is correct.

בת איש כנעני. the daughter of a Canaanite. The word "Canaanite" means a trader. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the word Canaanite is to be understood in the usual way, i.e. a local inhabitant of the Canaanite tribes. I maintain that it is impossible to imagine that any of the sons of Jacob would intermarry with the Canaanites, something which their forefathers had so strenuously opposed, as pointed out specifically in Pessachim 50. The Torah was careful to say "the daughter of a Canaanite man," meaning that she herself was not a Canaanite woman. This is only possible if her father was a merchant, not an actual Canaanite. Had she been a Canaanite, Yehudah would have been guilty of a great misdemeanour by marrying her. If this had indeed been the case the Torah would have indicated it by writing "he married a Canaanite woman whose father was called Shua," or something similar. It would not even have required an additional word to inform us of that fact. The Torah should not have let us surmise that Yehudah married a Canaanite woman but should have spelled it out clearly.

ויקחיה, he married her, etc. He performed all the necessary legal requirements for marriage.

בת איש כנעני , “the daughter of a Canaanite man of distinction.” According to Onkelos the word כנעני in this instance refers to a merchant, a trader. Yehudah was certainly true to the tradition of his fathers not to marry girls of Canaanite descent. The respective wives of all the brothers may be presumed to have been of Egyptian descent or of Moabite and Ammonite descent respectively, neighboring peoples who were not from Canaanitic stock. The brothers may also have married descendants of Ishmael or Keturah, Avraham’s second wife who had born him six sons. This is the reason that we are told in 46,10 amongst the list of sons of Shimon that there was someone who is described as שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman.” Even when the Torah was so explicit, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) still explained that that woman was not a true Canaanite, claiming that the “Canaanite woman” was none other than Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite and that Shimon had married her and had adopted the son she bore as a result of this rape.

בת איש כנעני, we do not know why the woman’s name has not been mentioned although the Torah revealed the name of her father. Her father was a merchant, a resident stranger, an export-import merchant, not a member of one of the local tribes. The sons of Yaakov were very careful in avoiding intermarriage with the local population, and when one of them did so, Shimon, his son Sha-ul is mentioned in a derogatory fashion as the “son of Canaanite” in 46,10. This critical comment on Shimon’s wife sets him apart from all of his brothers.

ויקחה, he first legally married her before having marital relations with her, i.e. ויבא אליה.

וירא, it appears that she was very attractive physically and therefore appeared to him as an appropriate mate.

A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE. [In translating “Canaanite,” Onkelos said “merchant.” That is to say, a merchantman who came to dwell in the land of Canaan for business reasons. His intent is to say that Jacob’s sons guarded themselves from marrying Canaanitish women, as Isaac and Abraham, their fathers, had commanded. (Above, 28:1. 24:3.) And thus did the Sages mention in the Gemara of Tractate Pesachim. (Pesachim 50a.) They took as wives women from Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and from the noble families of the children of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. It is for this reason that Scripture singles out Shaul, the son of Simeon, as the son of a Canaanitish woman, (Further, 46:10. ) as he was the only one among them. And even there the Rabbis expounded (Bereshith Rabbah 80:10. ) that the reference is to Dinah who had relations with a Canaanite [Shechem]. Our Rabbis, however, have differed in this matter. Thus they have said: (Ibid., 84:19.) “Rabbi Yehudah says, ‘Twin sisters were born with each of Jacob’s sons, and they took them as wives.’ Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Their wives were Canaanitish women.’” It is possible that Rabbi Nechemyah was not particular about [ the term “Canaanitish” and did not mean it to indicate] their genealogy. He meant to say only that they took women from the land of Canaan as wives. However, they were from among the strangers and the sojourners who had come there from all lands, either Ammonite or Moabite women, and other peoples. His purpose (Ramban is pointing out that Rabbi Nechemyah agrees with the Talmudic sages who said that Jacob’s sons did not marry Canaanitish women. See Note 108.) was only to differ with Rabbi Yehudah and say that they did not marry their sisters, since a maternal sister is forbidden to the sons of Noah. But according to Rabbi Yehudah it will be necessary to say that the sons of Leah married the twin sisters of the six other brothers, (This is because “the sons of Noah” were forbidden to marry a maternal sister. Prior to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, our ancestors had the status of b’nei Noach (sons of Noah). Consequently they could marry a paternal sister but not a maternal sister. See Sanhedrin 58 a; Rambam, Hilchoth Melachim 9:5.) and they in turn wed the twin sisters of the sons of Leah. It may be that Rabbi Nechemyah does not at all admit the existence of these twins, with Jacob not having any daughter other than Dinah, as the literal interpretation of Scripture would indicate. It is not logically correct to say that they all married Canaanitish women since there would then have been descendants of Canaan, the accursed servant, among those who inherited the land, just as there were representatives of the seed of Abraham, and Scripture has commanded that he be destroyed until neither remnant nor survivor remain. In any case, (I.e., whatever the correct opinion be in the matter discussed above.) this man [the Canaanite referred to here] was a merchant, for why should Scripture find it necessary to state that he was a Canaanite by descent when all people of the land were Canaanites, of the Perizzites and Jebusites and their brothers, as all of these traced their genealogy to Canaan? Adullam, [from where this man came] furthermore, was in the land of Canaan. (In Joshua 12:15, the king of Adullam is mentioned among the kings of Canaan. Thus if the word “Canaanite” is to be understood literally, why should Scripture have even mentioned it?) It would then have been proper for the verse to say: “And Judah took there a wife with such-and-such a name,” just as it mentions the names of the women in the case of Tamar, and Esau’s wives, (Above, 26:34.) and others. But the true explanation is that he was a merchant, not of the land of Canaan, which belonged to the Hivite or the Amorite. This then is the meaning of the verse: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, implying that he married her on account of her father. (This is implied in the expression, And he saw there, meaning that he saw a man there who was not of the regular community. The word “Canaanite” must therefore mean merchant, for they were all Canaanites, and if “Canaanite” were to refer to his genealogy it would not be significant enough to be mentioned.) And concerning the verse which states, The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess, (I Chronicles 2:3. This would seem to indicate that she was indeed a Canaanitess.) this is due to the fact that being the daughter of the man called “the Canaanite,” she was also so called, since this man was called “the merchant” by them as he was known for, and expert in, his trade, on account of which he settled there. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says (In his commentary on Genesis 46:10.) that because this woman was a Canaanitess, and Judah had transgressed the opinion of his fathers, her children were evil and they died. And this is why concerning Shaul, (Further, 46:10. ) Scripture mentions only that he was the son of a Canaanitish woman, but with respect to Shelah the son of Judah it was not necessary for Scripture to mention it (Since it is so stated in this present chapter. Shaul, on the other hand, was not mentioned above. Hence in mentioning the seventy souls, it states that he was of a Canaanitish woman (46:10). These are the words of Ibn Ezra, and Ramban now proceeds to comment upon them.) [when enumerating the descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt]. If so, (If Judah, according to Ibn Ezra, went against the command of Abraham and Isaac.) the expression, And Judah saw there a daughter, would mean that he saw her and desired her, even as it says of Samson, And he saw a woman in Timnah. (Judges 14:1.) And in the Parshah of Vayechi Yaakov, Rashi wrote: “And his sons bore him, (Further, 50:13.) but not his sons’ sons. For thus indeed did Jacob command them; ‘My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons since they are children of Canaanitish women.’” (Now this text of Rashi would apparently contradict the opinion of Ibn Ezra who states that only Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, were born of Canaanitish women. Ramban, however, proceeds to reconcile the position of Rashi with that of Ibn Ezra.) It may be that, according to Rashi, Jacob said this of Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, who were of the daughters of Canaan, and therefore Jacob excluded all the other [grandsons although their mothers were not Canaanitish]. However, in all of our texts of Bereshith Rabbah (Mentioned in Yalkut Shimoni 161.) we find this version: “My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons’ sons, as there is among them of the daughters of Canaan.” (The Midrash there concludes: “For it is said, And Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman (46:10).” Thus it is clear from this Midrash that only Shaul was born of a Canaanitish woman, but not Shelah the son of Judah.) Tamar likewise was the daughter of one of the strangers living in the land, not the daughter of a man who was a Canaanite by descent. Far be it that our lord David (He was a descendant of Tamar and Judah through Peretz, who was the ancestor of David. See Ruth 4:15-22.) and the Messiah our just one, who will speedily reveal himself to us, be of the seed of Canaan, the accursed servant. Our Rabbis have also said (Bereshith Rabbah 85:11.) concerning Tamar that she was the daughter of Shem, of whom it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d. (Above, 14:18.)

כנעני, a merchant, as per Onkelos. The word appears in that sense both in Isaiah 23,8 כנעניה נכבדי ארץ, “as its merchants, the land’s nobles.” The word כנעני also occurs in this sense in Hoseah 12,8 כנען בידו מאזני מרמה, “a trader who uses false weights.” The word cannot refer to the local Canaanite inhabitants as the sons of Yaakov were very careful not to intermarry with these people.

כנעני means A MERCHANT — (cf. Pesachim 50a and Zachariah 14:21).

A merchant. You might ask: How does Rashi know that this term refers to a merchant? Perhaps Shua was an actual Canaanite. The answer is: Avraham did not want to give Yitzchok a Canaanite wife, and also Yitzchok commanded Yaakov not to marry one, so Yaakov’s sons surely would not [marry a Canaanite] either. But you might object: Rashi explained on 37:35, “R. Nechemiah says: ‘They [Yaakov’s daughters-in-law] were Canaanites,’” implying the sons did marry Canaanites. The answer is: Men from a different nation took Canaanite women and begat daughters, [whom Yaakov’s sons married], for these daughters were not [true] Canaanites because the lineage follows the father. But here it cannot be explained so, since it is written, “The daughter of a Canaanite man,” implying that the father was Canaanite.

Judah saw there, in Adulam, the daughter of a Canaanite man, and his name was Shua. He took her in marriage, and engaged in intercourse with her.

בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of Tannaim in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt? If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region. It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו , that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.]

ער ואונן, some commentators trace the origin of these names to ערירי and אנינות, “childlessness, and pre burial state of mourning.” They had been named so, out of deference to Yaakov’s painful memories of the son he presumed lost. Nachmanides explains that Yehudah called his son ער, as a symbol of awakening, עוררה, whereas his wife called the second son אונן, and the Torah did not bother to inform us why either son was named as he was. It is possible that the wife of Yehudah had a difficult birth with her second son, just as Rachel called her second son by a name that reflected the pains she experienced in order to give birth to him. The word is closely related to the word מתאוננים in Numbers 11,1, where it describes deep frustration of the people and deep dissatisfaction. Yehudah, unlike his father Yaakov, did not bother to change the name his wife had given to their son. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,4 the name ער foreshadows that the boy would be “poured out from the world,” הוער, whereas the name אונן foreshadows that this child would bring sorrow and mourning upon himself, i.e. אנינה.

“And turned to an Adulamite man, and his name was Ḥira” – the Rabbis say: Ḥira is Ḥiram who was in the days of David, as it is stated: “For Ḥiram had been David’s friend all the days” (I Kings 5:15) – this man was accustomed to being a friend of this tribe. Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Ḥiram was someone else. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, he lived close to one thousand two hundred years; according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda [ben Rabbi Simon], he lived close to five hundred years. (Both opinions agree that Hiram was the prince of Tyre who was addressed by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 28:2) almost five hundred years after the time of David (see Yalkut Shimoni, Va’era 180) The debate is whether Ḥiram was also the same person as the Ḥira in the time of Judah, five hundred or so years before David.) “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua, and he married her and cohabited with her” (Genesis 38:2). “There Judah saw the daughter of a certain Canaanite whose name was Shua” – the daughter (The Hebrew text has the word son, rather than daughter, but many suggest that the text should say daughter (see, e.g., Etz Yosef). ) of a merchant, (This opinion interprets kenaani, generally translated as Canaanite, to mean merchant, which is in fact how the term is used in some places in Bible (see, e.g., Isaiah 23:8). Accordingly, Judah followed the family tradition of not marrying Canaanites. ) the shining light of his place. “She conceived, and she bore a son; he called his name Er” (Genesis 38:3). “She conceived, and she bore a son; he (Although the most common text of the midrash says “she”, the actual text of the verse is “he”. ) called his name Er” – as he was discharged [shehuar] from the world. “She conceived again, and bore a son; she called his name Onan. She continued and bore a son again, and called his name Shela; and he was in Keziv when she bore him” (Genesis 38:4–5). “She conceived again…Onan” – as he brought acute mourning [anina] upon himself. “She conceived again.… Shela” – as he initiated a genealogy [shenishtalshel] in the world. (This translation is based on a variant reading, “in the world [baolam],” instead of “from the world [min haolam].”) “She continued…again…Keziv” – Poskat, (This is the Aramaic name for Keziv.) the name of a place. “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death” (Genesis 38:7). “Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord” – he would plow in the gardens and discharge in the waste. (This is a euphemism for the fact that he would begin intercourse with his wife but then withdraw before discharging the semen so as to avoid impregnating her.)

[(Gen. 38:1:) THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE >.] This text is related (to Micah 1:15): I WILL YET BRING TO YOU ONE WHO SHALL DISPOSSESS YOU, < O INHABITANT OF MARESHAH; TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE GLORY OF ISRAEL >. (Rashi on Gen. 37:35; see Gen. R. 85:1.) R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed. The one said: The tribal patriarchs married their sisters, since it is stated (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS (According to R. Judah, the plural here shows that Jacob had more than one daughter.) AROSE TO COMFORT HIM. And how many daughters were there? They were simply their < brothers' twelve > twin sisters. < A given brother's mother > bore twins at his < birth >, and he would marry her. Moreover, it says so about Benjamin (in Gen. 35:17): BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU. (Gen. R. 82:8.) "Because this is a son for you" is not stated, but BECAUSE THIS ALSO IS A SON FOR YOU, since his mother had < already > given birth to < his > twin sister. Ergo (in Gen. 37:35): THEN ALL HIS SONS AND DAUGHTERS AROSE…. Hence you learn that they married their sisters. But R. Nehemiah maintains: His daughters were his daughters-in-law. Since one's son-in-law is like his son, and his daughter-in-law, like a daughter, one does not refrain from calling his daughter-in-law his daughter. (Gen. R. 84:21.) Our masters have said: Judah, who was the eldest in his father's house, married a Canaanite. Thus it is written (in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. And the prophet proclaims (in Micah 1:15): TO ADULLAM SHALL COME THE (HOLY ONE) [GLORY] OF ISRAEL. Ergo (according to Gen. 38:1-2): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY < FROM HIS BROTHERS > AND TURNED ASIDE TO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE < WHOSE NAME WAS HIRAH. AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. SO HE TOOK HER AND WENT IN UNTO HER >.

Another interpretation (continuing in Gen. 38:2): AND JUDAH SAW THERE < THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE >. There is the one who committed fornication and profited; there is also the one who committed fornication and lost. < There is the one who killed and profited; there is also the one who killed and lost. There is the one who stole and profited; there is also the one who stole and lost. There is the one who stole and lost, i.e., Achan (of Joshua 7). There is the one who stole and profited, i.e., Rachel, of whom it is stated (in Gen. 31:19): SO RACHEL STOLE. There is the one who killed and lost (in Numb. 35:16): THE MURDERER SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH. There is the one who killed and profited, i.e., Phinehas (of Numb. 25:7-13) >. (This section in angle brackets (< >) is taken from Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34. The shorter Buber text, which has Phinehas stealing instead of killing, reads as follows: “There is the one who stole and profited; there is also the one who stole and lost. There is the one who stole and profited. This is Phinehas. There is the one who stole and lost. This is Achan (of Joshua 7).”) There is the one who committed fornication and lost. This is Zimri (of Numb. 25:6-14). There is the one who committed fornication and profited. This is Judah, since from him arose Perez and Hezron, who were going to sire < the line of > David (according to Ruth 4:18-21) and the Messianic King, who is going to redeem Israel. Look at how many episodes the Holy One brings about before he raises up the Messianic King from Judah! That is the one about whom it is written (in Is. 11:2): AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD SHALL REST UPON HIM.

(Gen. 38:2:) AND JUDAH SAW THERE THE DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE WHOSE NAME WAS SHUA. When? When he had separated from his brothers, as stated (in vs. 1): THAT JUDAH WENT AWAY.